gaard Wrote:

ejmpalle Wrote:Since they ran for their own selfishness like they did, and they all ready had a history for leaving conference mates behind, usually at their former conference mates' expense, I can't help but pin the blame on the goat.

I may be biased as an Aggie fan. But I do recognize forms of fraud when I see it.

You should be grateful. Without their action there would be no place in the WAC for USU or BSU.

You are correct. I couldn't be happier that Utah St finds itself in a conference with Boise St and not BYU and Utah.

erdaaggie Wrote:

Cowboy Junky Wrote:Certain teams belong together. The Wyo, CSU, AFA, BYU, Utah, and UNM all belong together. In fact, you could include Boise in that group. If you neglect the ability of those teams to foster their 100 year old relationships with each other, they figure out a way to do it on their own. Those teams will always be together.

Boise will end up in that group eventually. They have to much in common with those schools. Boise is like a newborn mountain goat. They just haven't found their way to the herd yet.

Interesting little analysis though somewhat misguided and also neglecting in facts.

Only Wyoming, CSU, BYU, and Utah have truly long and storied histories with one another, and they haven't always tried to stick together like you try to say. BYU and Utah were not the teams that got Wyoming into the original WAC. Wyoming got into it because Arizona and New Mexico pulled some strings for them, and other candidates went elsewhere. BYU and Utah publicly say that they wanted USU in, but many question how hard they pushed to bring in their oldest rival. Then In 1967 UTEP and CSU were added and the final spot came down to USU and CSU. (Once again CSU was left out of the original membership.) New Mexico and the Arizona schools wanted UTEP and they struck a deal with Wyoming to add CSU instead of USU. Those 4 voted for CSU while BYU and Utah voted to add USU, though USU was a vastly superior football and basketball program at the time. BYU tried to get into the Big XII in 1994 and ditch the other Mtn schools (one of the reasons that the WAC 16 was born), and Utah would jump out the league in a second if the PAC-10 or Big XII wanted them. So those two Utah schools aren't as tight with Wyoming, CSU and Air Force as you want to think. (And like always I do have a source.)

http://mb4.scout.com/futahstatefrm27.sho...ic&index=1

Quote:In looking at a new conference several criteria were set including (1) large facilities; (2) location in or near a large population center; (3) large student body; (4) easy access by means of large jet aircraft; (5) fan support; (6) winning athletic tradition; and (7) commitment to maintaining a varied and extensive athletic program.
The two Oregon schools and Washington State decided to stay with the other Pacific Coast schools, leaving the proposed league with five schools.
Even though Wyoming didn't meet many of the criteria, except for the last two, it was included in the new league primarily because of a friendship between the presidents of New Mexico and Arizona with the president of Wyoming and also because of the reputation of Wyoming A.D. Red Jacoby.
There are many theories about why Utah State wasn't included, the main one being that the Aggies didn't get the same support from Utah and BYU that Wyoming did from New Mexico and Arizona.

Interestingly enough it is funny that you would think Boise State, a team that was already rejected, has the same type of influence as the little gang of 5. Last I checked they had very little history with the MWC (except for several beatdowns of your teams in the past decade.) They have only played a total of 18 games against current MWC teams in 100 years. Not exactly a long and storied history. They weren't even a WAC-16 member.

When you have something other than random speculation, post it. But do a little factfinding before you bring stuff to the board.

First: UNM has a storied history with the Mountain teams.

Second: I wouldn't exactly consider an article written and appealing to a Utah State audience as gospel on something that happened 50 years ago.

Regarldess of the speculation of the writer of the article you linked, Wyoming's relationship with UNM, BYU, and Utah led to them being a founding member of the league. Wyoming's performance got them in. You act like New Mexico blackmailed Utah and BYU, who screamed and hollered the whole time. That's not what happened. All of the schools agreed Wyoming was a good fit. They agreed our performance was up to standards. They agreed playing Wyoming was more benefitial then playing Utah State. Notice that their relationship was better than an in-state program: Utah State. So, you're proving my point. Wyoming, CSU, AFA, UNM, BYU, and Utah belong together. They belonged together when they were playing in the 1800's. They belonged together when they formed the Skyline. They belonged together when they formed the Wac. They belonged together when they formed the MWC. They belong together today. We've been playing each other since each school started playing.

There's a reason why Wyoming, BYU, and Utah were founding members of three different conferences together. You figure it out. I would have to say the 100 year history of the three programs is pretty solid evidence they fit together.

Who said Boise has any influence? I said Boise was a natural fit. There's a difference. In this part of the country, population base isn't that big of a factor. Athletic performance, political influence, cultural similarities, state support, and history are all factors. Boise is a natural fit. The only they lack is history. Utah State is lacking almost all of the above and has been for a long time.

Cowboy Junky Wrote:First: UNM has a storied history with the Mountain teams.

Yes but not 100 years of history. They left the borderland conference for the Skyline in 1951. That definitely constitutes a great deal of history, but not exactly ancient terms like you try to say.

Cowboy Junky Wrote:Second: I wouldn't exactly consider an article written and appealing to a Utah State audience as gospel on something that happened 50 years ago.

No, this was actually the Ute beat writer in the Deseret News, a paper owned by the LDS church, that wrote this article. It is about the MWC, not USU. It was never meant for a "Utah State audience." And at least I have a source and not just speculation like you. (BTW this is from a dissertation by Giles E. Parker that was written in the 1970's.)

Cowboy Junky Wrote:Regarldess of the speculation of the writer of the article you linked, Wyoming's relationship with UNM, BYU, and Utah led to them being a founding member of the league. Wyoming's performance got them in. You act like New Mexico blackmailed Utah and BYU, who screamed and hollered the whole time. That's not what happened. All of the schools agreed Wyoming was a good fit. They agreed our performance was up to standards. They agreed playing Wyoming was more benefitial then playing Utah State. Notice that their relationship was better than an in-state program: Utah State. So, you're proving my point. Wyoming, CSU, AFA, UNM, BYU, and Utah belong together. They belonged together when they were playing in the 1800's. They belonged together when they formed the Skyline. They belonged together when they formed the Wac. They belonged together when they formed the MWC. They belong together today. We've been playing each other since each school started playing.

That is very debatable. Wyoming's had a good decade in the 1950's but absolutely sucked before that. (We are talking about a period of 60 years, not just 10.) Wyoming didn't have a winning record against any of the major Skyline schools (BYU, Utah, CSU, and USU.) Their number of conference championships at the time was nearly identical to USU's and they had a 14-27-3 record against the Aggies. They got a few political favors from heavyweight Arizona. BYU and Utah did not push for the Cowboys, BYU's president wanted the Oregon and Washington schools and they even publically supported for USU to join up a few times, though there are well founded rumors that they did other things in private. (Yes I have a source on that.) When the PAC-8 was formed they then looked at other candidates. The only Skyline school that pushed hard for Wyoming was New Mexico. There was not a huge amount of solidarity from the Utah schools towards Wyoming. It is just a circumstanial matter of geography. If the University of Wyoming was located closer to SLC and Provo, they would have been blacklisted.

Cowboy Junky Wrote:There's a reason why Wyoming, BYU, and Utah were founding members of three different conferences together. You figure it out. I would have to say the 100 year history of the three programs is pretty solid evidence they fit together.

Yep there is. Because BYU has never been able to get into a major conference and other teams have helped Wyoming get into the leagues and Wyoming has had good fortune in circumstances. (other teams turned the WAC down.) Wyoming is not the huge political heavyweight you like to claim that they are.

Cowboy Junky Wrote:Who said Boise has any influence? I said Boise was a natural fit. There's a difference. In this part of the country, population base isn't that big of a factor. Athletic performance, political influence, cultural similarities, state support, and history are all factors. Boise is a natural fit. The only they lack is history. Utah State is lacking almost all of the above and has been for a long time.

Junky there you go claiming wild things again. I ask you again, who in the MWC has ever said that Boise is such a great natural fit? (No you don't count.) Media days were just held. Anybody talk about expansion? I sure didn't see it. Bring sources if you want to make these claims. I've called you on this a few times and you've never shown me ANY source.

You'll never believe it, but I don't really care if USU ever was even considered for the MWC. The WAC is a comparable league (yes I know that you hate to hear that, but it is true in most areas) and we have plenty of oppotunities to grow hear. You can't threaten a lot of things on boards and beat your chest, but the fact remains most of what you say is just that, what you say. I refuse to envy another non-BCS league like some others. But hey you can go right ahead and talk superiority if you want.

ejmpalle Wrote:SPCoug, I'm not just talking about what should've been talked about to keep the WAC 16 together (probably would be a futile attempt anyhow, which really makes me when I think about how stupid EVERYONE was in the first place), but I'm talking about coming together to make the split the least painfull possible. This probably would've required lawyers.

I couldn't agree more with your choice of adjectives. Furthermore, your comment about trying to create a more amicable split with lawyers may have, in fact, occurred. Is it possible that the two sides and their attorneys came to at least a gentlemen's agreement that, in return for the WAC retaining all bball credits and the NCAA autoinvite, that all talk of a lawsuit disappeared? Unless those in the know talk, like why Utah State never made it into the WAC for 40 years, we'll probably never know exactly what happened. However, when you look at it, that was a huge chunk of change (credits) and security blanket (autoinvite) that the departing 8 left on the table, at least some of which they had a reasonable chance of taking, had it gone to court.

ejmpalle Wrote:The way I look at it, the gang of five bought into it by sticking with the WAC 16 idea for as long as they did. By buying into it, they showed a loyalty to it and basically lied to everyone involved by doing so. Because when they left, they left in a fraudulent manner. Had the gang of five tried to either #1 fight the issue till its death from the beginning when it was created or #2 left after realizing their mistake by agreeing to conditions of leaving with lawyers, I'd have no problem with them or the break up.

Since they ran for their own selfishness like they did, and they all ready had a history for leaving conference mates behind, usually at their former conference mates' expense, I can't help but pin the blame on the goat.

I may be biased as an Aggie fan. But I do recognize forms of fraud when I see it.

Here again, we simply don't know what took place behind the scenes and whether there was some sort of parting agreement. Circumstantial evidence at least suggests that was what possibly happened. I've wondered if there was some sort of gentlemen's agreement that the MWC would also not poach any WAC teams, at least for a specified time period.

SPCoug Wrote:I couldn't agree more with your choice of adjectives. Furthermore, your comment about trying to create a more amicable split with lawyers may have, in fact, occurred. Is it possible that the two sides and their attorneys came to at least a gentlemen's agreement that, in return for the WAC retaining all bball credits and the NCAA autoinvite, that all talk of a lawsuit disappeared? Unless those in the know talk, like why Utah State never made it into the WAC for 40 years, we'll probably never know exactly what happened. However, when you look at it, that was a huge chunk of change (credits) and security blanket (autoinvite) that the departing 8 left on the table, at least some of which they had a reasonable chance of taking, had it gone to court.

No this didn't happen. Contractually the 8 breakaway schools had to leave those credits with the WAC. Rick Majerus tried to push for the revenue to go with them, but they really had no case to stand on. USU's credits to the Big West still remain there, Tulsa's credits to the WAC are still here, and Cinncinati and Louisville's credits are still in C-USA. When a team leaves a league on their own accord, they leave the money behind.

As for the autobid, that too was because the 8 schools formed a new league. NCAA rules require a probationary period for leagues. The WAC retained its bid because it was an established league and the MWC was not. The only thing that the MWC was able to take with them was the ESPN contract. That was a huge deal, but it was done without any type of interference from ESPN.

erdaaggie Wrote:No this didn't happen. Contractually the 8 breakaway schools had to leave those credits with the WAC. Rick Majerus tried to push for the revenue to go with them, but they really had no case to stand on. USU's credits to the Big West still remain there, Tulsa's credits to the WAC are still here, and Cinncinati and Louisville's credits are still in C-USA. When a team leaves a league on their own accord, they leave the money behind.

As for the autobid, that too was because the 8 schools formed a new league. NCAA rules require a probationary period for leagues. The WAC retained its bid because it was an established league and the MWC was not. The only thing that the MWC was able to take with them was the ESPN contract. That was a huge deal, but it was done without any type of interference from ESPN.

The MWC still got one NCAA bid that year, as I recall.

ejmpalle Wrote:

erdaaggie Wrote:No this didn't happen. Contractually the 8 breakaway schools had to leave those credits with the WAC. Rick Majerus tried to push for the revenue to go with them, but they really had no case to stand on. USU's credits to the Big West still remain there, Tulsa's credits to the WAC are still here, and Cinncinati and Louisville's credits are still in C-USA. When a team leaves a league on their own accord, they leave the money behind.

As for the autobid, that too was because the 8 schools formed a new league. NCAA rules require a probationary period for leagues. The WAC retained its bid because it was an established league and the MWC was not. The only thing that the MWC was able to take with them was the ESPN contract. That was a huge deal, but it was done without any type of interference from ESPN.

The MWC still got one NCAA bid that year, as I recall.

But it was not an autobid. Utah earned an at large as did UNLV. (Notice #50-#51 are not in parentheses denoting an autobid.)

http://www.kenpom.com/rpi.php?y=2000

Quote:Is it possible that the two sides and their attorneys came to at least a gentlemen's agreement that, in return for the WAC retaining all bball credits and the NCAA autoinvite, that all talk of a lawsuit disappeared?

If you believe interviews and speculation after the fact, the WAC was set to go to court, until it was revealed that the Mountain Goats weren't the only school that was set to abandon the conference. I think TCU was somehow involved, but it's all hazy to me.