Here's why MWC stopping at 10!!
Copied this off the CUSA board:
McMurphy wrote an article just today with industry sources explaining why the MWC stopped at 10. Here you go:
"An industry source told CBSSports.com Monday the additions of San Jose State and Utah State to the MWC were "probable, but not 'done' as of right now."
If San Jose State and Utah State are added, as expected, it would give the Mountain West 10 members in 2013, but don't expect the league to add any more schools -- at least not any time soon.
The reason is the league is holding out for the possibility that Boise State and San Diego State might reverse course from their decision to leave for the Big East and remain in the Mountain West.
"There will be no more teams added to the Mountain West until the Big East [media rights] deal is consummated this fall," an industry source told CBSSports.com. "They'll want to see what Boise State and San Diego State will do and if they stay with Big East, then the Mountain West can explore whether they want to add more teams later."
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...y/18906752
Re: Here's why MWC stopping at 10!!
Makes sense to me. I think a BSU/SDSU reunion is unlikely, but there's no reason to fill the dance card until you are sure. I'm honestly not sure that there are two more teams worth adding at any rate. Assuming that BSU and SDSU stay put, stick with 10/12 and then when the merger goes through make pods 6/5/5/6.
Re: Here's why MWC stopping at 10!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
parialex
Makes sense to me. I think a BSU/SDSU reunion is unlikely, but there's no reason to fill the dance card until you are sure. I'm honestly not sure that there are two more teams worth adding at any rate. Assuming that BSU and SDSU stay put, stick with 10/12 and then when the merger goes through make pods 6/5/5/6.
I understand what you're saying. But since you are a Houston fan, let me ask you this: In that scenario, with CUSA already full with 12 members, aren't Houston and SMU left stranded?
Without Boise St to anchor the conference, I believe Big East football will really be a tough sell in Texas. I can't see Houston or SMU prospering in an "eastern based" football conference without BSU. It's difficult to imagine Houston and SMU fans getting all fired up to go watch their teams play UCONN, USF, UCF, Memphis and Rutgers. :icon_roll: Frankly, I'd rather watch paint dry. I also can't see Houston and SMU settling for a basketball conference when they are located in football crazy Texas.
HD
Re: Here's why MWC stopping at 10!!
If the BCS auto bids go away....I'm not sure there's too much plus side to Boise State's move to the Big Least.
They'd be smarter to stick with the MWC. Less travel costs.
Re: Here's why MWC stopping at 10!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tbone1
If the BCS auto bids go away....I'm not sure there's too much plus side to Boise State's move to the Big Least.
They'd be smarter to stick with the MWC. Less travel costs.
The BC$ AQ status going away. 2013 will be the last year of the BC$ as we know it.
Re: Here's why MWC stopping at 10!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HogDawg
I understand what you're saying. But since you are a Houston fan, let me ask you this: In that scenario, with CUSA already full with 12 members, aren't Houston and SMU left stranded?
Without Boise St to anchor the conference, I believe Big East football will really be a tough sell in Texas. I can't see Houston or SMU prospering in an "eastern based" football conference without BSU. It's difficult to imagine Houston and SMU fans getting all fired up to go watch their teams play UCONN, USF, UCF, Memphis and Rutgers. :icon_roll: Frankly, I'd rather watch paint dry. I also can't see Houston and SMU settling for a basketball conference when they are located in football crazy Texas.
I don't think you give BE football enough credit. It lacks the regionality of C*USA 2.0, but it's still an overall better conference with or without Boise State. The conference champs or co-champs from every year but one are still in the conference. We will continue to play Rice and SMU year in and year out. The biggies other than that are Tulsa and USM (we talk about missing playing USM every year, but not really ECU). My hope is that we would bring Tulsa in as #12*. AFA or ECU would work, too. AFA has been a tough sell, but I'm pretty sure that Tulsa or ECU would say yes. USM I am less sure about, but I wouldn't bet against it. It'd be less regional, but with bigger opponents. Less regional, bigger opponents. The real thing I am worried about is another round of expansion that leaves us without Louisville and maybe others. But I feel pretty confident that we will be able to restock from C*USA.
Re: Here's why MWC stopping at 10!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tbone1
If the BCS auto bids go away....I'm not sure there's too much plus side to Boise State's move to the Big Least.
They'd be smarter to stick with the MWC. Less travel costs.
It will come down to the TV contract. The expectation is that the TV contract will outstrip travel expenses by a rather large amount. If that's not the case, they're not leaving. It's pretty much that simple. I think they should strongly reconsider even if the TV dollars are good, but it's easy for me to say what kind of money they should turn down.
Re: Here's why MWC stopping at 10!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
parialex
It will come down to the TV contract. The expectation is that the TV contract will outstrip travel expenses by a rather large amount. If that's not the case, they're not leaving. It's pretty much that simple. I think they should strongly reconsider even if the TV dollars are good, but it's easy for me to say what kind of money they should turn down.
With the death of the WAC, Boise State may not be able to find a home for their non-football sports.
BSU's only option may be the Mountain West for all sports.
Re: Here's why MWC stopping at 10!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dawg06
With the death of the WAC, Boise State may not be able to find a home for their non-football sports.
BSU's only option may be the Mountain West for all sports.
Big Sky.
Re: Here's why MWC stopping at 10!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
parialex
Big Sky.
I don't think the Big Sky will take them.
Re: Here's why MWC stopping at 10!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dawg06
I don't think the Big Sky will take them.
I'm relatively confident that they will. Boise State has solid (if not great) basketball in a conference that has few solid teams. The BSC have two FBO members and so non-FB members are not out of the question. It's a "name" school that will look good for schools that don't often get to host name teams (even in basketball). Boise would likely be able to televise games locally and actually has a market foothold. It's a comparatively good match geographically. Montana wants them and the conference could stand to show Montana some good will after how the last expansion did not go their way. I think this is one of the reasons that the WAC invited them even though BSU staying in the MWC was in their best interest: the WAC wasn't their only option. I can think of a lot of reasons why they would and few why they would not.
Re: Here's why MWC stopping at 10!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
parialex
I'm relatively confident that they will. Boise State has solid (if not great) basketball in a conference that has few solid teams. The BSC have two FBO members and so non-FB members are not out of the question. It's a "name" school that will look good for schools that don't often get to host name teams (even in basketball). Boise would likely be able to televise games locally and actually has a market foothold. It's a comparatively good match geographically. Montana wants them and the conference could stand to show Montana some good will after how the last expansion did not go their way. I think this is one of the reasons that the WAC invited them even though BSU staying in the MWC was in their best interest: the WAC wasn't their only option. I can think of a lot of reasons why they would and few why they would not.
The problem is that adding Boise State to the Big Sky would put all of the current members at a competitive disadvantage to Boise State because BSU's athletic budget will be so much greater as a result of Big East football. Basically Boise State would be able to buy Big Sky championships in the all the other sports. It'd be like Houston joining the Southland for non-football sports. Unfair. Adding Boise State will not make the Big Sky a multi-bid basketball league either. Even though BSU fits in the Big Sky, I don't really see them adding dollars to the Big Sky or getting an invite.
Re: Here's why MWC stopping at 10!!
Re: Here's why MWC stopping at 10!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dawg06
The problem is that adding Boise State to the Big Sky would put all of the current members at a competitive disadvantage to Boise State because BSU's athletic budget will be so much greater as a result of Big East football. Basically Boise State would be able to buy Big Sky championships in the all the other sports. It'd be like Houston joining the Southland for non-football sports. Unfair. Adding Boise State will not make the Big Sky a multi-bid basketball league either. Even though BSU fits in the Big Sky, I don't really see them adding dollars to the Big Sky or getting an invite.
It might be unfair, but I think the upsides would outweigh the downsides. I don't think Houston would have had a problem getting an invite to the Southland, if it came down to it. If the financial windfall is enough, Boise State could buy their way to a scheduling agreement and remain independent, I'd think? I don't think it'd be necessary, but most of the problems with independence are money (not really an issue here) and scheduling, correct?
All of this might be a consideration if the TV deals between the Alliance and the Big East are within the same ballpark. If they're within the same ballpark, I think BSU would be wise to stay where they are (though, as mentioned, I think they should consider it regardless) and I think there's a good chance that they would. If they're not within the same ballpark (the difference being enough to cover travel expenses and have a pretty good amount of money left over), I think they can get what they need without having to go back to the MWC with their tail tucked between their legs. I think the difference in per-school TV contract money will be pretty significant. If I'm wrong on that, then there really is a good chance they stay with the MWC. But not for lack of other options.
Re: Here's why MWC stopping at 10!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HogDawg
In that scenario, with CUSA already full with 12 members, aren't Houston and SMU left stranded?
I think that if some point in the future, SMU and Houston wanted to come back to CUSA, they would take them with no reservations. That would give CUSA 14 schools, but they could work with that. I would expect however, that the Big 12-2 would be a more likely landing spot for them, especially if they can produce consistant, high quality football teams over the next few years.
