(02-12-2013 10:18 AM)The Eye Wrote:  Guys, remember this about the MWC

There was heavy talk (rumor, but that is all we have on anything) not that long ago about the MWC-16.

UTEP, Tulsa, SMU, Houston, and BYU were all mentioned.

SMU and apparently Houston told them no at that time, or maybe more correctly told them they preferred to stay east. My feeling is Tulsa wants to go where those two go.

That left UTEP and BYU at the time. Since its been 30+ days and we haven't heard anything on the BYU angle, I assume its a no-go. Obviously UTEP needed someone to go with them as the MWC isn't going to 13.

I personally don't think its a stretch to say that if Houston and SMU changed their mind, you could see the MWC-16 back on the table with Houston, SMU, UTEP, Tulsa. Its certainly not a new idea, its been discussed as an option previously.

The way the MWC TV deal is structured, adding more inventory adds more games to sell. Their Tier 1 is for an already set number of games. So I don't think adding teams splits the pie as much as one would think.

JMHO

The issue isn't just who to add but are they willing to add at all. By adding 4 more you have to rearrange the divisions and with how the MWC national TV clause is set up, Boise is what will move the needle. If you go to 16 you essentially have to move Boise out of the Mountain Division and into the West. That hurts the pocketbooks of the front range schools. I would not be surprised to see them pretty much torpedo any form of expansion until their TV deal is restructured.

(02-12-2013 10:05 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(02-12-2013 09:16 AM)apex_pirate Wrote:  

(02-11-2013 11:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-11-2013 11:04 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(02-11-2013 10:55 PM)ArQ Wrote:  What if UConn and Cincinnati join C7 on basketball and Olympic sports and go independent on football like Notre Dame?

Right. The C7 are leaving to find stability and an association with like minded universities and they'd want these two?

You mean two nationally known basketball schools that have shared a league for nearly a decade for Cinci and much longer for UConn. Yeah, they are not like minded at all. The truth is those two bring more to the table than anyone else available. Sure, they will leave in a few years--so what. Xavier and Butler are not going anywhere. They will still be there--or add them now and when UConn and Cinci just split the money less ways.

IMO, UCONN and Cincy will not go to the C7 or the MWC. The C7 makes no sense for either side. The C7 is trying to escape the nightmare they had with the hybrid. UCONN and Cincy are no exception. It doesn't make sense for UCONN and Cincy either. They destroy their football programs. They aren't going to go to the MWC and make what they could in the Big East just so they can park basketball for a couple of years. A couple of years is a cake walk and the ACC or whomever won't have forgotten who they are by then. The MWC isn't going to add two teams and split their pie again only to have UCONN and Cincy leave them in two years (or whenever). The attendance at both schools would surely drop with an MWC schedule. Only Boise St. would be a draw. Once game isn't cutting it.

I wish the UCONN and Cincy to the C7 and MWC stuff would stop. It just isn't realistic. You may have someone on one side wanting it but it doesn't appear to be that way on both sides. Half the time, it's just fans with their cockamamie suggestions.

You may be right on all counts but from the UConn and Cincy point of view, they would likely want to have their cake and eat it too. If the C7 wants them then they could certainly put their non-FB sports there and still play FB in the nBE. The nBE would not be in a position to force them to be all in. It might lessen the contract some for the nBE to not have UConn and Cincy basketball but the nBE has to have their FB.

Actually at this talked about value Cincy and UCONN really have no bargaining power with the Big East. If the numbers reported are actually true then the league is essentially getting no bonus or value from having those 2 and being penalized by the instability they cause. Keeping them FB only keeps the exact same level of instability without the benefit of their actually valuable product. It serves no purpose. If would be different if you were talking 4 million with vs 2 million without them, but if you are talking about 2 million with and 1.5 million without who really cares. Their buyouts would be worth more to the league than it would cost to the leagues value.

(02-12-2013 10:25 AM)laxtonto Wrote:  

(02-12-2013 10:18 AM)The Eye Wrote:  Guys, remember this about the MWC

There was heavy talk (rumor, but that is all we have on anything) not that long ago about the MWC-16.

UTEP, Tulsa, SMU, Houston, and BYU were all mentioned.

SMU and apparently Houston told them no at that time, or maybe more correctly told them they preferred to stay east. My feeling is Tulsa wants to go where those two go.

That left UTEP and BYU at the time. Since its been 30+ days and we haven't heard anything on the BYU angle, I assume its a no-go. Obviously UTEP needed someone to go with them as the MWC isn't going to 13.

I personally don't think its a stretch to say that if Houston and SMU changed their mind, you could see the MWC-16 back on the table with Houston, SMU, UTEP, Tulsa. Its certainly not a new idea, its been discussed as an option previously.

The way the MWC TV deal is structured, adding more inventory adds more games to sell. Their Tier 1 is for an already set number of games. So I don't think adding teams splits the pie as much as one would think.

JMHO

The issue isn't just who to add but are they willing to add at all. By adding 4 more you have to rearrange the divisions and with how the MWC national TV clause is set up, Boise is what will move the needle. If you go to 16 you essentially have to move Boise out of the Mountain Division and into the West. That hurts the pocketbooks of the front range schools. I would not be surprised to see them pretty much torpedo any form of expansion until their TV deal is restructured.

I don't disagree. But they were apparently pretty willing to do it 30 days ago when they were told no. Not sure what has changed in that time period that would lead us to believe they wouldn't still be open to the idea.

Personally, I don't think its an MWC issue really. I think it still lies with what Houston and/or SMU want to do.

(02-12-2013 10:43 AM)The Eye Wrote:  

(02-12-2013 10:25 AM)laxtonto Wrote:  

(02-12-2013 10:18 AM)The Eye Wrote:  Guys, remember this about the MWC

There was heavy talk (rumor, but that is all we have on anything) not that long ago about the MWC-16.

UTEP, Tulsa, SMU, Houston, and BYU were all mentioned.

SMU and apparently Houston told them no at that time, or maybe more correctly told them they preferred to stay east. My feeling is Tulsa wants to go where those two go.

That left UTEP and BYU at the time. Since its been 30+ days and we haven't heard anything on the BYU angle, I assume its a no-go. Obviously UTEP needed someone to go with them as the MWC isn't going to 13.

I personally don't think its a stretch to say that if Houston and SMU changed their mind, you could see the MWC-16 back on the table with Houston, SMU, UTEP, Tulsa. Its certainly not a new idea, its been discussed as an option previously.

The way the MWC TV deal is structured, adding more inventory adds more games to sell. Their Tier 1 is for an already set number of games. So I don't think adding teams splits the pie as much as one would think.

JMHO

The issue isn't just who to add but are they willing to add at all. By adding 4 more you have to rearrange the divisions and with how the MWC national TV clause is set up, Boise is what will move the needle. If you go to 16 you essentially have to move Boise out of the Mountain Division and into the West. That hurts the pocketbooks of the front range schools. I would not be surprised to see them pretty much torpedo any form of expansion until their TV deal is restructured.

I don't disagree. But they were apparently pretty willing to do it 30 days ago when they were told no. Not sure what has changed in that time period that would lead us to believe they wouldn't still be open to the idea.

Personally, I don't think its an MWC issue really. I think it still lies with what Houston and/or SMU want to do.

They have been after us to join for years. If SMU and Houston contacted the MW Im pretty sure we would be welcomed. The MW would likely have little objection to getting two top ten markets and access to Texas recruiting.

(02-12-2013 11:06 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-12-2013 10:43 AM)The Eye Wrote:  

(02-12-2013 10:25 AM)laxtonto Wrote:  

(02-12-2013 10:18 AM)The Eye Wrote:  Guys, remember this about the MWC

There was heavy talk (rumor, but that is all we have on anything) not that long ago about the MWC-16.

UTEP, Tulsa, SMU, Houston, and BYU were all mentioned.

SMU and apparently Houston told them no at that time, or maybe more correctly told them they preferred to stay east. My feeling is Tulsa wants to go where those two go.

That left UTEP and BYU at the time. Since its been 30+ days and we haven't heard anything on the BYU angle, I assume its a no-go. Obviously UTEP needed someone to go with them as the MWC isn't going to 13.

I personally don't think its a stretch to say that if Houston and SMU changed their mind, you could see the MWC-16 back on the table with Houston, SMU, UTEP, Tulsa. Its certainly not a new idea, its been discussed as an option previously.

The way the MWC TV deal is structured, adding more inventory adds more games to sell. Their Tier 1 is for an already set number of games. So I don't think adding teams splits the pie as much as one would think.

JMHO

The issue isn't just who to add but are they willing to add at all. By adding 4 more you have to rearrange the divisions and with how the MWC national TV clause is set up, Boise is what will move the needle. If you go to 16 you essentially have to move Boise out of the Mountain Division and into the West. That hurts the pocketbooks of the front range schools. I would not be surprised to see them pretty much torpedo any form of expansion until their TV deal is restructured.

I don't disagree. But they were apparently pretty willing to do it 30 days ago when they were told no. Not sure what has changed in that time period that would lead us to believe they wouldn't still be open to the idea.

Personally, I don't think its an MWC issue really. I think it still lies with what Houston and/or SMU want to do.

They have been after us to join for years. If SMU and Houston contacted the MW Im pretty sure we would be welcomed. The MW would likely have little objection to getting two top ten markets and access to Texas recruiting.

It is bigger than just getting you guys to say yes. It means their league has to change in numbers (14 or possibly 16). Do they want that when it means splitting up the pie again? Is the new lower payout worth it for either side? Getting to 10 or 12 was a slam dunk with SMU and Houston. More than 12, not so much unless BYU comes to the party. Not sure the invitations are still there now. Only if BYU reverses tread. JMO.

The Texas schools have a home in the MWC should they want it.

The Front Range schools want games in TX, and the Pacific schools would love Boise moving over to that division.

(02-11-2013 08:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-11-2013 07:41 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(02-11-2013 07:30 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-11-2013 07:20 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  If the Big East schools really wanted to save on travel, they'd allign themselves with CUSA and split into two divisions. But I guess that's below us. Imagine returning to CUSA with our tails between our legs. It makes the most sense, but we're all too proud to do it. That TV deal is a pittance of an offer, but it's not an insult. It's what the conference is really worth.

The Mountain West is one thing. They should make close to 2 million a team (just like the nBE), but they offer more stability, better basketball (once Cinci and UConn leave), and the opportunity to earn more with the national performance bonus.

CUSA offers nothing that is an upgrade. Lower pay, worse football, worse basketball. Worse covereage (at least NBC-Sports is a nation network in nearly 90 million homes). Going back to CUSA is a non-stater.

I don't know, but increasing gameday revenue and saving a lot on travel makes more sense, to me, than barely breaking even in a conference that's really not much better than the one we just left. At least we'd all get to drive to all the road games and our own home games would have higher attendance. We'll be damn lucky to get more than $3 million a year in television revenue.

UTEP, North Texas, Tulsa, UH, Rice, Tulane, Louisiana Tech, Southern Mississippi, UTSA, Memphis and SMU sounds like a nice western division to me. But, oh well.

One game against Boise would probably sell more extra tickets that the whole slate of games you describe combined. Nobody on that list would help us sell tickets--its just the same folks we been playing. Why would they suddenly be a boon for our ticket sales now? The answer is they wouldnt be. Those games would be a tough sell in Houston. It is what it is.

First of all, we aren't in the MWC. Secondly, there's no way you can tell me that UConn, Temple, USF, UCF, Memphis, Cincinatti and ECU are going to draw more fans to the stadium than UTSA, UTEP, SMU, Tulsa, Rice, Tulane, North Texas, Louisiana Tech and Southern Mississippi. This whole situation sucks.

(02-12-2013 10:25 AM)laxtonto Wrote:  

(02-12-2013 10:18 AM)The Eye Wrote:  Guys, remember this about the MWC

There was heavy talk (rumor, but that is all we have on anything) not that long ago about the MWC-16.

UTEP, Tulsa, SMU, Houston, and BYU were all mentioned.

SMU and apparently Houston told them no at that time, or maybe more correctly told them they preferred to stay east. My feeling is Tulsa wants to go where those two go.

That left UTEP and BYU at the time. Since its been 30+ days and we haven't heard anything on the BYU angle, I assume its a no-go. Obviously UTEP needed someone to go with them as the MWC isn't going to 13.

I personally don't think its a stretch to say that if Houston and SMU changed their mind, you could see the MWC-16 back on the table with Houston, SMU, UTEP, Tulsa. Its certainly not a new idea, its been discussed as an option previously.

The way the MWC TV deal is structured, adding more inventory adds more games to sell. Their Tier 1 is for an already set number of games. So I don't think adding teams splits the pie as much as one would think.

JMHO

The issue isn't just who to add but are they willing to add at all. By adding 4 more you have to rearrange the divisions and with how the MWC national TV clause is set up, Boise is what will move the needle. If you go to 16 you essentially have to move Boise out of the Mountain Division and into the West. That hurts the pocketbooks of the front range schools. I would not be surprised to see them pretty much torpedo any form of expansion until their TV deal is restructured.

If Houston and SMU decide they want in, they're in. The front range schools want the in to Texas recruiting, and the football profile would definitely be raised. The only question is whether they'll ever want in.

Also, what 303 said about Boise St moving back over to the West in that scenario. It would be the best of all worlds as far as the MWC is concerned.

(02-12-2013 12:43 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(02-11-2013 08:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-11-2013 07:41 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(02-11-2013 07:30 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-11-2013 07:20 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  If the Big East schools really wanted to save on travel, they'd allign themselves with CUSA and split into two divisions. But I guess that's below us. Imagine returning to CUSA with our tails between our legs. It makes the most sense, but we're all too proud to do it. That TV deal is a pittance of an offer, but it's not an insult. It's what the conference is really worth.

The Mountain West is one thing. They should make close to 2 million a team (just like the nBE), but they offer more stability, better basketball (once Cinci and UConn leave), and the opportunity to earn more with the national performance bonus.

CUSA offers nothing that is an upgrade. Lower pay, worse football, worse basketball. Worse covereage (at least NBC-Sports is a nation network in nearly 90 million homes). Going back to CUSA is a non-stater.

I don't know, but increasing gameday revenue and saving a lot on travel makes more sense, to me, than barely breaking even in a conference that's really not much better than the one we just left. At least we'd all get to drive to all the road games and our own home games would have higher attendance. We'll be damn lucky to get more than $3 million a year in television revenue.

UTEP, North Texas, Tulsa, UH, Rice, Tulane, Louisiana Tech, Southern Mississippi, UTSA, Memphis and SMU sounds like a nice western division to me. But, oh well.

One game against Boise would probably sell more extra tickets that the whole slate of games you describe combined. Nobody on that list would help us sell tickets--its just the same folks we been playing. Why would they suddenly be a boon for our ticket sales now? The answer is they wouldnt be. Those games would be a tough sell in Houston. It is what it is.

First of all, we aren't in the MWC. Secondly, there's no way you can tell me that UConn, Temple, USF, UCF, Memphis, Cincinatti and ECU are going to draw more fans to the stadium than UTSA, UTEP, SMU, Tulsa, Rice, Tulane, North Texas, Louisiana Tech and Southern Mississippi. This whole situation sucks.

Thats not what I said. The only game in the nBE that was really going to help sell tickets was Boise (BYU and Air Force had they joined would have also helped). That list of teams you rattled off have been in Houston before. Nobody cares a lick about seeing them. Most Houston fans in our stadium are there to the see the Cougars. Thats the one thing that has changed drastically from the SWC days.

UTSA, UTEP, N Texas do absolutely nothing to fill up a Houston stadium. There is too much competition for the fan dollar in Houston. The Astros, Rockets, Texans, Dynamo--even minor league hockey and baseball are available. With all those choices, the opportunity to see N Texas play just doesnt move the needle in our city (not picking on NTx, all the regional Tx teams are received with a big yawn in this city). Even though they are relatively close, the truth is none of those regional teams have a large fans base that travels in any significant numbers. Thats why this move to regional conferences is a fallacy. These fans bases are too small and dont travel. They make no difference to area ticket sales. If they did the MAC would have some of the highest attendance numbers among the non-AQ--but they dont. If a conference as regional as the MAC cant make it happen--then the concept simply doesnt work.