Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2010 20:36:37 GMT -8
Moving this thread over to here is just stupid.
'Course that's JMO. (Sorry, I'll be good from now on. I promise.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2010 20:47:47 GMT -8
Moving this thread over to here is just stupid. 'Course that's JMO. (Sorry, I'll be good from now on. I promise.) I think all these threads are Aztec-related. I'm grateful that the guys took on the board but in my opinion there are too many subdivisions. So you and I agree. So does a regular on the former board who emailed me today and hasn't registered here. At the risk of being suspended for saying so, I think it's just STOOPID.  |
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jun 8, 2010 20:53:44 GMT -8
MWC content in any form, let alone of this potential is Aztec related. All new iterations have had their growing pains, but, what is often a great forum has been illiterate on potentially the biggest issue in Aztec/MWC/nCAA history. And that is due, at leat, to the dissection of the boards.
|
|
choop
Bench Warmer
Posts: 52
|
Post by choop on Jun 9, 2010 6:04:45 GMT -8
It looks like the only way the MWC comes out of this unscathed is if the 6 teams do leave the Big-12 for the PAC-16. The PAC will have a full house and not look for MWC teams to join. Nebraska and MO will certainly join the Big-10, leaving the Big-12 dead, again not raiding the MWC.
If the MWC is left in tact, they can play the Super Conference game by inviting Boise State, Kansas, K-State, Houston, Baylor (or other schools) giving the MWC a 14 or 16 team conference.
The Big 10 would take a couple of teams from the Big East (Rutgers, Syracuse?), with the ACC finishing off the Big East by absorbing a few more (WV, Pitt?)
If somethin close to this happens, the MWC could survive and thrive.
|
|
|
|
Post by survalli on Jun 9, 2010 6:17:46 GMT -8
Moving this thread over to here is just stupid. 'Course that's JMO. (Sorry, I'll be good from now on. I promise.) totally agree, what the hell. someone taking the new bike out for some exercise? im mean seriously.... if this isnt Aztec related what is? |
|
|
|
Post by Fred Noonan on Jun 9, 2010 8:12:23 GMT -8
Moving this thread over to here is just stupid. 'Course that's JMO. (Sorry, I'll be good from now on. I promise.) Hey, come on SGF. You catch flies with honey, not ... But, without using your descriptive language I would add that moving this topic is counter-productive in that it ends up with less people getting important information. I'm not as fired up as you are about the subject, but I really appreciate all the work and thought you've put into it. It saves me having to go through the effort and expend what few brain cells are left. Thus, you provide something of merit to all of us and I--for one--would appreciate being able to access it at the same time I'm checking up on other matters of import to SDSU. Plus, I respect your learned opinion on this. Bottom line, I think MWC expansion/contraction/destruction/etc. is an exception to what I would otherwise consider a good rule. Thus proving the rule itself. The Fred Noonan School of Navigation.  |
|
|
|
Post by Aztec For Life on Jun 9, 2010 8:37:45 GMT -8
Can we rethink moving the expansion threads back to the main "Aztec" section? I feel these topics are Aztec related, and we don't have to go back and forth. It's kind of a pain and like Fred said, less people will see them and comment. Thanks!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2010 8:55:39 GMT -8
Moving this thread over to here is just stupid. 'Course that's JMO. (Sorry, I'll be good from now on. I promise.) Hey, come on SGF. You catch flies with honey, not ... Sorry to whomever I may have offended. I'll just go back to my insignificant cubbyhole now. |
|
|
|
Post by Fred Noonan on Jun 9, 2010 9:07:19 GMT -8
Hey, come on SGF. You catch flies with honey, not ... Sorry to whomever I may have offended. I'll just go back to my insignificant cubbyhole now. Hey, SGF. I'm not offended! Please don't put me in the category of all the "offended" people running around. Everyone and his/her cousin is always "offended" by everything possibly imaginable Also, stay out of cubby holes. Stay away from everything "cubby." Being an Aztec Fan is hard enough without help from "cubbys" who have their own long standing problems. And, please, keep up the good work on the Saga of the MGC. The Fred Noonan School of Navigation. |
|
|
|
Post by boomboom on Jun 9, 2010 11:28:35 GMT -8
The greatest part of this conference expansion is that our conference is not part of the carnage. Since December, we have been hoping for a Pac-10 invite for SDSU or praying the Pac-10 does not take BYU, Utah, etc. Now, we have the opportunity to take the remaining four from the Big-12, post explosion, and with Boise have a 14 team conference that is BCS worthy and not to be ignored in all sports. The 16 Pac teams and our 14 (hopefully with Colorado rather than Baylor) make the top 30 programs in the western US.
The key is courting Kansas, open to taking K st, Iowa St. and Colorado or Baylor or even Houston, along with Boise St.
West-- SDSU, UNLV, Boise, Utah, BYU, CSU, Air Force
East -- Kansas, K st., TCU, New Mexico, Baylor or Colorado, Iowa st., Houston.
Kansas is desparate and us showing how they can help "lead" the conference to national respect would help.
|
|
|
|
Post by E31-Aztec on Jun 10, 2010 9:18:19 GMT -8
Talks of Big XII rebuilding with MWC's and CUSA's best programs on the MWC boards are starting to show a consistent theme: SDSU is f****d.
|
|
|
|
Post by laaztec on Jun 10, 2010 9:35:06 GMT -8
Talks of Big XII rebuilding with MWC's and CUSA's best programs on the MWC boards are starting to show a consistent theme: SDSU is f****d. I am getting that feeling too. With Mizzou staying in the BIG 12 they will try to add MWC teams and SDSU won't be one of them |
|
|
|
Post by E31-Aztec on Jun 10, 2010 10:36:26 GMT -8
I may be dreaming, but SDSU admins should push for inclusion into Pac-10 expansion. I mean, they took COLORADO and are considering Texas Tech!
|
|
|
|
Post by greysuit on Jun 10, 2010 10:46:23 GMT -8
I may be dreaming, but SDSU admins should push for inclusion into Pac-10 expansion. I mean, they took COLORADO and are considering Texas Tech! Adding Colorado was to gain another market, courting TT is to get Texas. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Jun 10, 2010 11:36:49 GMT -8
Talks of Big XII rebuilding with MWC's and CUSA's best programs on the MWC boards are starting to show a consistent theme: SDSU is f****d. Except nobody's sure yet if Missouri will stay in the Big 12. =Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2010 12:02:47 GMT -8
Adding Colorado was to gain another market, courting TT is to get Texas. The Pac's adding of Colorado was to let the Texas legislature know that if they're going to make inclusion of Baylor a quid pro quo for UT, aTm and TT coming to the Pac that the Pac will then offer only Utah and do exactly what it intended to do in the first place. It's a great move on the part of the Pac and I tip my cap to its new commissioner. Tom Hansen was a behind the times old fogey who should have been pushed out the door a decade ago since the Pac was falling further and further behind the SEC every year. This new guy, however, is showing himself to be just as savvy as Jim Delany and that's saying something. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2010 12:09:01 GMT -8
Adding Colorado was to gain another market, courting TT is to get Texas. The Pac's adding of Colorado was to let the Texas legislature know that if they're going to make inclusion of Baylor a quid pro quo for UT, aTm and TT coming to the Pac that the Pac will then offer only Utah and do exactly what it intended to do in the first place. It's a great move on the part of the Pac and I tip my cap to its new commissioner. Tom Hansen was a behind the times old fogey who should have been pushed out the door a decade ago since the Pac was falling further and further behind the SEC every year. This new guy, however, is showing himself to be just as savvy as Jim Delany and that's saying something. Bad possible scenario would be Nebraska to Big10, Utah to Pac10, BYU and TCU to Big12. |
|
|
|
Post by sancarlosaztec on Jun 10, 2010 12:11:32 GMT -8
I disagree. SDSU, while not possessing a winning program, is strategic in terms of TV market and recruiting. I'm not convinced SDSU wouldn't be coveted by a depleted Big-12.
For the same reason I am beginning to think there is a remote chance SDSU could be invited to the PAC-X only as a defensive measure to deny access to west coast recruiting and market share.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2010 12:14:57 GMT -8
Bad possible scenario would be Nebraska to Big10, Utah to Pac10, BYU and TCU to Big12. Absolutely and it's certainly within the realm of possibility. But it's also less likely than probable - despite how many TCU fans would love to see it happen. (At least half the TCU fans on the MWC board have shown their true colors over the last week or so. Those half have only the most minimal loyalty to the MWC and much more so than BYU and Utah fans, they would throw the rest of us under the bus in the blink of an eye.) |
|
|
|
Post by E31-Aztec on Jun 10, 2010 12:23:27 GMT -8
|
|
