|
Post by 83aztec on Jan 19, 2011 9:15:16 GMT -8
USU brings zero to the conference, No recruiting, no TV no $ nothing. SJSU would only bring recruiting nothing else because they are such a pitiful part of the bay area market. All in all I say don't expand.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2011 9:19:36 GMT -8
Sounds like UTEP might be willing to join the MWC because of their rivalry and close proximity to New Mexico. It's obvious to me UTEP has no interest in joining the MWC unless SMU and Rice also do. The only rumor I ever hear about UTEP coming in without those other two is from Utah State fans on the MWC board, who keep hinting about sources that next week the MWC will go to 12 by adding UTEP and USU. I think that's nothing more than a bunch of desperate alumni's wishful thinking. The only way UTEP gets in the MWC is as a package deal with the other two and probably also Houston with the MWC going to 14, which would be a really bad idea.
|
|
|
Post by hoobs on Jan 19, 2011 9:22:17 GMT -8
Growing up in & around San Jose... I always remember seeing SJSU getting almost as much publicity as Stanford & Cal. Not saying they rule the marketplace or anything... but SJSU definitely *IS* relevant to the Bay Area media market.
I like the carrot idea... up their annual athletics budget by 7 mil and get an invite to the MWC... WHEN such a move would make more money for the conference as a whole. If they met that condition, and if Comcast would sweeten the TV deal if the MWC brought along someone like UTEP as well... that would be totally acceptable.
But ALL of these ideas are premised on the condition that ANY further additions to the MWC would ONLY be done if the net per-team revenue from the TV deal INCREASED as a result.
|
|
|
Post by votecarcetti on Jan 19, 2011 9:23:16 GMT -8
Hey you never know...just two years ago our program was just as bas as SJSU - maybe they can turn it around? No, our team was just as bad as SJSU's. SJSU could go 12-0 next year and I still wouldn't want them. There's a big difference between a team and a program. For all practical purposes SJSU doesn't even have an athletic program, and what's worse is that whatever they have there has almost no potential to improve. Yup, no program, no commitment to building one, and no interest. Here is the sports pecking order in the Bay Area: 1a. 49ers 1b. Giants 3. Raiders 4. Warriors 5. Athletics 6. Cal 7. Sharks 8. Stanford 9. Earthquakes 10. De La Salle High 11. San Jose State I give De La Salle the edge because they'd probably beat the Spartans. Tough when you can't break the Top 10 pecking order in your own metro area ....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2011 9:26:48 GMT -8
However, they don't give jack $#!+ to their school. Its this. A lot has been said over the years that "San Diego State will support a winner". Well, I don't San Jose State will even do that. Just too few alumni care about SJSU athletics.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2011 9:30:32 GMT -8
I suspect we'll do whatever the TV big wigs tell us to do. That's what I'm afraid of. Consider this. A BYU fan on the MWC board pointed out a couple weeks ago where the conference might have been had it not been so short-sighted several years ago when Boise first approached the conference about admission. The vote then was not to expand. The rationale was Boise would have been one more mouth to feed. In hindsight, had Boise then been added it's conceivable that the BCS would have been forced per its formula to make the MWC an AQ conference next year when the cycle comes up for renewal. The result of that would have been that BYU would definitely not have left and TCU probably would not have. (Utah was gone anyway.) Anyway, I think that if the MWC powers that be have the same tunnel vision about revenue they did then, that USU could conceivably be let in. And if that happens, I think it's inevitably going to be the next step toward dissolution of the conference.
|
|
|
Post by sdsuaztecs on Jan 19, 2011 9:33:32 GMT -8
C-USA's new tv contract with Fox makes it difficult for C-USA schools to contemplate leaving for the MWC. Without a new MWC tv contract, any C-USA team would be essentially taking a pay cut to join the MWC. So Comcast/NBC probably should be involved with the decision-making about who gets into the MWC to make it more profitable for those C-USA schools to jump ship. Until you have some competition among tv networks, Comcast seems to have the MWC by the cajones.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2011 9:39:03 GMT -8
1) Banned? What the heck am I supposed to do at work for the next month? 2) You have to admit, though, bringing back Zoob hoops makes fiscal sense, particularly if you go to a divisional split and are short a hoops team because of Hawaii's football-only status. It would feel icky, that I grant you. 1) LOL!. I'm self employed and try not to think how much more money I could conceivably earn if I wasn't addicted to this stuff. 2) I actually agree with you. I detest BYU. However, the thought of Utah State coming into the MWC makes me want to puke. Yeah, right, the MWC should add a school which hasn't sold out its 25K seat stadium in years. The mere fact it's even being speculated as a possibility shows how far the MWC has dropped in prestige in the last year.
|
|
|
Post by HollywoodAztec on Jan 19, 2011 9:42:09 GMT -8
I hope you're being facetious because if you're not, you ought to be banned from posting on this board for a month for entertaining the thought of bringing back the Yners into our league. Aren't you aware of the fact that they're dead to the Aztec Nation? After this academic season, we won't be playing them in football and hopefully in other sports as well for years to come. Banned? What the heck am I supposed to do at work for the next month? You have to admit, though, bringing back Zoob hoops makes fiscal sense, particularly if you go to a divisional split and are short a hoops team because of Hawaii's football-only status. It would feel icky, that I grant you. LOL!! Lurking is the option my Aztec brother. I'm sorry but I've stopped considering anything relating to the Yners. Notice that I don't even mention their school letters.
|
|
|
Post by Trujillos & Beer on Jan 19, 2011 9:55:44 GMT -8
I suspect we'll do whatever the TV big wigs tell us to do. That's what I'm afraid of. Consider this. A BYU fan on the MWC board pointed out a couple weeks ago where the conference might have been had it not been so short-sighted several years ago when Boise first approached the conference about admission. The vote then was not to expand. The rationale was Boise would have been one more mouth to feed. In hindsight, had Boise then been added it's conceivable that the BCS would have been forced per its formula to make the MWC an AQ conference next year when the cycle comes up for renewal. The result of that would have been that BYU would definitely not have left and TCU probably would not have. (Utah was gone anyway.) Anyway, I think that if the MWC powers that be have the same tunnel vision about revenue they did then, that USU could conceivably be let in. And if that happens, I think it's inevitably going to be the next step toward dissolution of the conference. That doesn't make any sense. Boise's record does count towards the MWC's current evaluation as BSU is joining in 2011. Furthermore had BSU joined the conference years ago the MWC would have been limited to one team making a BCS game per season. This allowed both BSU and TCU to play in BCS games and finish the season with higher rankings than if they knocked each other off in conference play. BYU, TCU and Utah all knew this as the Broncos joined the MWC before any of those three decided to leave. Once the Pac-10 couldn't get Texas and settled for Utah the writing was on the wall. BSU joining years ago would have prevented nothing and it certainly wouldn't have helped gain AQ status.
|
|
|
Post by sdsuaztecs on Jan 19, 2011 10:05:08 GMT -8
The MWC can pretty much count on getting a BCS invitation every year with the 10 teams in the league in 2012. So any discussion of additional revenue for the MWC should focus on the existing MWC tv contract with Comcast. And that probably means expanding to 12 teams. If enough $$$$ are floated in front of SMU and Houston to join the MWC by way of Comcast, they would have a hard time rejecting the opportunity. So in effect the decision to expand would become Comcast's decision. And Comcast could do serious damage to Fox's tv exposure in those markets due to the recent tv contract with C-USA by essentially "robbing" Fox of those two markets.
|
|
|
Post by William L. Rupp on Jan 19, 2011 10:49:05 GMT -8
I'll say it again - don't expand unless the programs we're bringing in are respected. Unless they're winners they'll just drag the conference down. The MWC is already badly hurt by our bottom feeders - we don't need more of them. My prerequisite would simply be, "Do you have a winning record over the last 10 years?" If yes, then you are invited. If no, then don't call us, we won't call you. Not that this really matters to most readers, but I goofed and posted this under my WLR account. Should have been AztecWilliam. . . Not bad advice, but in point of fact the list of expansion candidates is not exactly awe inspiring. Here are the ones I think most people think about, including some that are extreme long shots. The records listed are wins and losses over the period 2001 through 2010: - Houston: 62-53
- Rice: 47-71
- UTEP: 46-71
- San Jose State: 40-80
- SMU: 38-82
- New Mexico St.: 36-85
- Utah St.: 31-85
As you can see, only the Univ. of Houston has a winning record over the past ten seasons. As for SJSU, they are in the middle of what is, let's be frank here, a pretty weak field. I suppose there are others we could consider, but given the paucity of schools with solid FB programs, perhaps we should should remain satisfied with 10 members. It's obvious that the MWC has alredy plicked off the cream of the non-BCS crop in the West. AzWm
|
|
|
Post by Cwag on Jan 19, 2011 10:59:56 GMT -8
Stay at 10.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2011 11:43:44 GMT -8
[That doesn't make any sense. Boise's record does count towards the MWC's current evaluation as BSU is joining in 2011. Furthermore had BSU joined the conference years ago the MWC would have been limited to one team making a BCS game per season. This allowed both BSU and TCU to play in BCS games and finish the season with higher rankings than if they knocked each other off in conference play. BYU, TCU and Utah all knew this as the Broncos joined the MWC before any of those three decided to leave. Once the Pac-10 couldn't get Texas and settled for Utah the writing was on the wall. BSU joining years ago would have prevented nothing and it certainly wouldn't have helped gain AQ status. I'll admit I don't follow that stuff. Just like income from TV contracts, the BCS formula is all a numbers game and that sort of stuff bores me to tears. So I'll trust that you're correct and the BYU guy was wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2011 11:50:57 GMT -8
the list of expansion candidates is not exactly awe inspiring. Here are the ones I think most people think about, including some that are extreme long shots. The records listed are wins and losses over the period 2001 through 2010: - Houston: 62-53
- Rice: 47-71
- UTEP: 46-71
- San Jose State: 40-80
- SMU: 38-82
- New Mexico St.: 36-85
- Utah St.: 31-85
As you can see, only the Univ. of Houston has a winning record over the past ten seasons. As for SJSU, they are in the middle of what is, let's be frank here, a pretty weak field. You've been very diplomatic in your use of adjectives. It's still comes down to potential, or lack thereof. I'm not sure whether SJSU is a football has-been. However, Utah State and UTEP are football never-wases. And there are absolutely no rumors that NMSU is being considered for admission. Like SJSU, Rice may be a has-been, but Rice hasn't been relevant in football for more than half a century. Also, there's no rumors about Rice coming except as a package deal with the other CUSA schools in Texas. SMU? A football powerhouse in the late seventies and early eighties. Best cheaters in the Southwest Conference, and that's saying something. Terrible since the Death Penalty but now coming back. Plus, although SMU has a rather small alumni base, there are a bunch of rich ones who donate bucketloads of money.
|
|
|
Post by Montezuma on Jan 19, 2011 12:09:48 GMT -8
Here we go: back to the old WAC minus BYU and Utah, makes no sense to bring in San Jose State. I am not a fan of this, next thing Long Beach State will reinstate football and join too. It is time for SDSU to improve all sports and get an invite to a BCS conference. I hate that it has come to this but the BCS is not going anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by RB Aztec on Jan 19, 2011 12:19:19 GMT -8
Let's invite UCLA, USC, and Arizona so they can play in a real conference.
|
|
|
Post by sdsuaztecs on Jan 19, 2011 12:54:26 GMT -8
What are the odds either Boise or SDSU make it to a BCS bowl next season? Not sure if it would matter if TCU makes it or not since they are leaving the MWC. But I would guess the marketability from a tv standpoing would increase significantly. If that's the case, then staying put at 10 members would give the MWC more bargaining power from a number of angles including inviting Houston and SMU. But f Houston and SMU would be the most logical to invite in either case, why not invite them now? And that would be a hard decision for Houston and SMU because if they rejected the invitation, they would foreclose any future opportunity with the MWC.....meaning if the MWC gained AQ status in the future they would no longer be wanted.
|
|
|
Post by sdsuaztecs on Jan 19, 2011 14:45:11 GMT -8
I agree....offer Houston and SMU now but......with a new tv contract on the table from Comcast for a whole bunch more money including $$$ for a championship game.
|
|
|
Post by sdsuaztecs on Jan 19, 2011 15:36:18 GMT -8
I don't see anyone in C-USA who's going to a BCS bowl next year or the year after. So the most likely candidate from a non-AQ conference to go to a BCS bowl especially next season is none other than Boise or SDSU at this point. So if SMU and Houston want to participate in BCS money and an even bigger tv deal than they currently have, they might be inclined to join the MWC. The current deal with Comcast is $12M per year for another five years. So if you stay the course you get $1.2M/team/year shared 10 ways or $1.0M per year by simply adding two teams without revising the current contract. I'd ask Comcast for $18.0M per year for the next five years if we add Houston and SMU ($1.5M per team per year) to include a conference championship game. Or ask for $24M per year for 10 years and make it $2.0M/team/year.
|
|