|
Post by aztech on Jan 19, 2011 15:46:38 GMT -8
I suspect we'll do whatever the TV big wigs tell us to do. Thompson would be an imbecile if he thinks they have that much power.
|
|
|
Post by aztecfred on Jan 19, 2011 16:08:00 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 I would love SJSU for location if they weren't SJSU. I think SMU and Rice would be our best choices because they have more money and more prestige academically with more upside athletically.
|
|
|
Post by aztecdad on Jan 19, 2011 22:00:01 GMT -8
Pretty funny comments since SJSU is 17-16-2 all-time against SDSU. Of course, the last two times they played, SJSU beat SDSU and that was less than 5 years ago. They did it while under sanctions with reduced practice time and scholarships. If you know anything about the history of the two schools, they used to have some heated rivalries in the old BIG WEST conference.
Just because SDSU had a winning season, doesn't mean they couldn't fall back down pretty quickly. In 2006 SJSU was 9-4 and beat a team coached by Rocky Long in the New Mexico Bowl.
Overall they are 5-3 in Bowl games, with 3 of those wins since 1981.
Since the decimation of their program by their president back in the early 90's they have struggled. It was decimated under the auspice Title IX and a short-sighted university president. I am sure there are many other CSU's that wish they had been able to patch their football programs together to have survived the cuts to the programs in the early 90's. Long Beach and Fullerton used to compete against SDSU. Before SDSU gets too cocky, they need to establish themselves as more than a flash in the pan. And no matter what anybody thinks, the new MWC isn't much different than the old WAC.
|
|
|
Post by Cwag on Jan 19, 2011 22:06:41 GMT -8
Pretty funny comments since SJSU is 17-16-2 all-time against SDSU. Of course, the last two times they played, SJSU beat SDSU and that was less than 5 years ago. They did it while under sanctions with reduced practice time and scholarships. If you know anything about the history of the two schools, they used to have some heated rivalries in the old BIG WEST conference. Just because SDSU had a winning season, doesn't mean they couldn't fall back down pretty quickly. In 2006 SJSU was 9-4 and beat a team coached by Rocky Long in the New Mexico Bowl. Overall they are 5-3 in Bowl games, with 3 of those wins since 1981. Since the decimation of their program by their president back in the early 90's they have struggled. It was decimated under the auspice Title IX and a short-sighted university president. I am sure there are many other CSU's that wish they had been able to patch their football programs together to have survived the cuts to the programs in the early 90's. Long Beach and Fullerton used to compete against SDSU. Before SDSU gets too cocky, they need to establish themselves as more than a flash in the pan. And no matter what anybody thinks, the new MWC isn't much different than the old WAC. You mean the PCAA: San Diego State Long Beach State UCSB Fresno State San Jose State UOP
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jan 19, 2011 22:10:03 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. But William, performance on the field is one of the lesser considerations at work here. Winning matters, but these things are even more important (in no order): *tradition (was the program ever big time?) *influential alumni*TV sets * alumni presence in government and big business *nationwide alumni involvement * alumni dollars *academic prestige * alumni pride (spending what it takes) Excellent points. As I suggested, I'm not sure that adding more schools just to reach a certain number makes much sense. Besides, the really good ones (Boise, etc.) have already made their moves, either into or out of the MWC. There is not much left. (Another thought on SJSU. I'm not really familiar with their situation, so I can't explain what has happened up there. I do know that SDSU, even though we were terrible in FB and BB a decade ago, always had potential. The Sleeping Giant Syndrome. But once upon a time SJSU was doing well. They are not exactly in an area as barren as Las Cruces and were semi-big time long before we were. They should not have fallen as far as they have.) AzWm
|
|
|
Post by aztecbb on Jan 19, 2011 23:37:17 GMT -8
THey bring nothing - what makes you think TV gives arats a** if nobody will turn the games on. All you do is dilute the pot with crappy teams.
nononono A THOUSAND TIMES No!
|
|
|
Post by sdsuaztecs on Jan 20, 2011 8:58:25 GMT -8
Worst case for expansion is a reduction in total tv money by 2/12 or 17% per team. But that assumes no additional revenue from either a new tv contract or tv money from a conference championship game. Therefore, expansion does not necessarily "dilute" total revenues per team depending on the terms of a new tv contract. But considering "worst case" is a 17% drop in revenue per team, that should pose very little risk for expansion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2011 9:08:41 GMT -8
San Jose facilities are terrible. They uses to have a large local talent pool . Not anymore Latins,whites and blacks now replaced with Asians . Unless the can fins some silicon billionaire to help them they are toast.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2011 9:28:11 GMT -8
San Jose facilities are terrible. They uses ot have a lagee local talent pol . Not anymore Latins,whites and blacks now replaced with Asians . Unless the can fins some silicon billionaire to help them they are toast. There's absolutely no point in placing a carrot in front of some schools since they have so little potential they could run all day and not catch it. That's not the case with SJSU, however. Even right now at its football nadir it's a short flight from SD and is located in a heavily populated area rich with HS football talent. Also, SJSU is a very large school with a ton of rich alumni. I sense, however, that its athletics department is run as poorly as ours was during the Bay and Schemmel administrations. So I highly doubt that the revenue potential is being tapped anywhere near what is possible to do. So I think if the MWC is smart, it doesn't expand now but places a carrot in front of SJSU. Let them know what it would take to get an offer in a couple years. If they meet it, we'll know things are changing. If they don't, THEN they're toast. Same for Utah State.
|
|
|
Post by Cwag on Jan 20, 2011 12:56:58 GMT -8
San Jose facilities are terrible. They uses ot have a lagee local talent pol . Not anymore Latins,whites and blacks now replaced with Asians . Unless the can fins some silicon billionaire to help them they are toast. There's absolutely no point in placing a carrot in front of some schools since they have so little potential they could run all day and not catch it. That's not the case with SJSU, however. Even right now at its football nadir it's a short flight from SD and is located in a heavily populated area rich with HS football talent. Also, SJSU is a very large school with a ton of rich alumni. I sense, however, that its athletics department is run as poorly as ours was during the Bay and Schemmel administrations. So I highly doubt that the revenue potential is being tapped anywhere near what is possible to do. So I think if the MWC is smart, it doesn't expand now but places a carrot in front of SJSU. Let them know what it would take to get an offer in a couple years. If they meet it, we'll know things are changing. If they don't, THEN they're toast. Same for Utah State. Not a bad idea...Set some minimum requirements for future members and stay at 10 for now. If two schools get motivated and reach or exceed those requirements they will be seriously considered.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2011 13:58:36 GMT -8
Not a bad idea...Set some minimum requirements for future members and stay at 10 for now. If two schools get motivated and reach or exceed those requirements they will be seriously considered. I bet they don't do it though. I just sense that some of our conference mates have significant problems with their athletics budgets - Fresno, UNM, UNLV and Wyoming specifically and maybe others - and they're looking at the reworked TV deal to bail them out. If the result is the MWC adds USU and UTEP, I think it will be akin to taking out a home improvement loan in order to pay off credit card debt. I'm not saying that kind of think shouldn't be done in a pinch (Mrs. SGF and I have done it a couple times) but the more beholden to Comcast the MWC becomes, the more the conference risks being nothing more than the 2010's version of the 1990's WAC.
|
|
|
Post by sdsuaztecs on Jan 20, 2011 14:17:37 GMT -8
If you're not going to expand now, under what conditions would the MWC expand? The MWC was really forced into adding Boise, Fresno and Nevada and only did so because Utah and BYU pointed a gun to their head by leaving the conference. That is a lousy way to do business IMO. Doing nothing is the easy thing to do because it doesn't require any effort and/or risk in some people's minds. However, doing nothing can also be the riskiest path to take. At a minimum, some effort to determine which teams would benefit the MWC the most should be undertaken by the MWC and whether those teams would consider joining the MWC. Based on prior polls on this board, it appears that SMU and Houston are the favorites among SDSU supporters. So why haven't they been invited to join the MWC? What is the point in waiting? And is the MWC at risk for future poaching by other conferences like the Big-12? What would happen to the MWC if Boise and BYU were invited to the Big-12? There is a multitude of possible outcomes but without some serious analysis and decision-making it's all crystal-ball gazing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2011 14:33:58 GMT -8
The league presidents were gun shy in its infancy. The last thing they wanted was to create another bloated conference with Arroz Con Pollo and the like to have to feed. But clearly they should have seen that Boise had the dedication to football that was then lacking at SDSU and continues to be lacking at UNM and UNLV. Nor did they want to add any more schools like Wyoming which have minimal potential.
BTW, today's Boise paper quotes Craig Thompson as saying they aren't necessarily wedded to Comcast. I don't know whether that's just a broadside to let those schmucks know they better stop playing hardball with renegotiation of the contract or whether the MWC is talking to ESPN or Fox about bailing on Comcast, but whichever it is, I was pleased to hear that.
|
|