Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
SI.com nBE vs. MWC Who has better long term future?
Author Message
1845 Bear Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 5,161
Joined: Aug 2010
Reputation: 187
I Root For: Baylor
Location:
Post: #21
RE: SI.com nBE vs. MWC Who has better long term future?
(02-21-2013 09:10 AM)gocards#1 Wrote:  
(02-21-2013 12:09 AM)Texas2Step Wrote:  
(02-20-2013 10:18 PM)gocards#1 Wrote:  The MWC is less likely to lose members in the future. The Pac 12 and Big 10 don't want anybody from that conference, and it's a step above CUSA, the MAC, and the Sun Belt and at worst on equal footing with the Big East.

Meanwhile there isn't a team in the Big East right now that can't wait to jump. UConn is as good as gone at this point. That alone makes the MWC better in the long term. Who knows what the Big East will look like tomorrow?

When did UConn receive an invite? When did Cincinnati receive an invite? The only thing a reputable journalist can do is talk about reality, not hypothetical futures, when comparing the futures of two or more leagues. How would you react if he were comparing the Big 12 and ACC, and said "Well UNC/UVA/VTech/etc. are as good as gone, so let's just take them out of our analysis". Wouldn't make sense right?

The major sticking point of this whole analysis, is that with all of the crap the Big East has endured for the last 12 months, from the media and their own members alike, there is still a clear competitive advantage top to bottom over the MWC. You can talk about Boise's individual BCS runs in the WAC all you like, but the numbers as a league don't lie. The MWC needed historic seasons in the past 5 years from three schools who all lost their head coaches this off season, in order to even make it close with a conference who just added a couple of schools who have been not only CUSA, but national bottom dwellers for these past several years.

My point is that the Big East is unstable, the MWC is not. The thread was about the future of the two conferences, and I think the fact that everyone in the Big East wants to jump ASAP proves it doesn't have a very bright future. Compare that to the MWC, who just had two members thumb their noses at the Big East.

The Big East with Louisville and Rutgers gives it a competitive advantage over the MWC, without them the MWC is a better conference. Yes, the MWC has some God awful teams, but the top half of the conference is much better than the top half of the Big East going forward. The Big East is mostly average programs and crappy programs, the MWC is an elite program, a bunch of average programs, and a bunch of crappy programs. The two are similar, but the MWC is slightly better.

The MWC and Big East is full of teams that would leave for more money. Geography simply protects the MWC more as only 2 potential threats are there instead of 4 superior paying leagues in the BE footprint could possibly start a chain reaction that gets the BE raided.
02-21-2013 10:28 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #22
RE: SI.com nBE vs. MWC Who has better long term future?
(02-21-2013 10:10 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  
(02-20-2013 10:53 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(02-20-2013 10:32 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(02-20-2013 10:26 PM)HuskieTap22 Wrote:  Too much back and not enough forward analysis in the article. Once Cinci leaves the pendulum undoubtedly swings toward the MWC.

MWC is in unpopulated areas, but actually owns many of them. Other than UConn and Navy, BE doesn't. BE is more subject to poaching.

Top of MWC is better, so they will be perceived much better despite the weakness at the bottom.

Big East football will have weakness at the bottom, too -- for starters, they have Memphis and Tulane.

Memphis FB is down...but they are not a weak fanbase. They win, they'll get a legit 35-40k fans for BE games.

OK, but we were talking about weakness on the field, and the point is that both conferences have teams that aren't getting it done on the football field. The MWC also has teams that can put that many fans in the stands if they win big, but the perception of the strength of either league is going to be based by performance on the field.
02-21-2013 10:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nert Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,700
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 41
I Root For: Utah, CMU, Cincinnati
Location:
Post: #23
RE: SI.com nBE vs. MWC Who has better long term future?
SI.com nBE vs. MWC Who has better long term future?

Easy: the conference that will still be together in 2 years, 5 years, 10 years.

Odds are better that the MWC still looks mostly like the MWC-12 in 10 years than that the newBigEast will be something other than C-USA 4.0.

Here's a better question: When was the last time the BigEast went three months without an announced addition or deletion?

I don't know the answer - but until it happens again, we shouldn't even be talking about "the long term" and the newBigEast.
(This post was last modified: 02-21-2013 03:00 PM by nert.)
02-21-2013 02:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
goodknightfl Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 21,110
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 499
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #24
RE: SI.com nBE vs. MWC Who has better long term future?
The MWC has no future, #1 it has no TV markets. #2 it is a conf of 1 and the sheeple.
#3. The teams outside of Boise will make at best 1/2 the $$$ that BE will make. Yes it is stable because like the Mac, no one wants anyone they have. #4 Their bowls will no be as good as BE bowls. The BE has upside, the MWC only has down side.
02-21-2013 03:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,301
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #25
RE: SI.com nBE vs. MWC Who has better long term future?
(02-21-2013 03:30 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  The MWC has no future, #1 it has no TV markets. #2 it is a conf of 1 and the sheeple.
#3. The teams outside of Boise will make at best 1/2 the $$$ that BE will make. Yes it is stable because like the Mac, no one wants anyone they have. #4 Their bowls will no be as good as BE bowls. The BE has upside, the MWC only has down side.

UNLV, UNM and Colorado St. have plenty of upside. So do Hawaii, Fresno, Wyoming and SDSU.
02-21-2013 03:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Texas2Step Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 755
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 27
I Root For: The American
Location:
Post: #26
RE: SI.com nBE vs. MWC Who has better long term future?
(02-21-2013 09:10 AM)gocards#1 Wrote:  
(02-21-2013 12:09 AM)Texas2Step Wrote:  
(02-20-2013 10:18 PM)gocards#1 Wrote:  The MWC is less likely to lose members in the future. The Pac 12 and Big 10 don't want anybody from that conference, and it's a step above CUSA, the MAC, and the Sun Belt and at worst on equal footing with the Big East.

Meanwhile there isn't a team in the Big East right now that can't wait to jump. UConn is as good as gone at this point. That alone makes the MWC better in the long term. Who knows what the Big East will look like tomorrow?

When did UConn receive an invite? When did Cincinnati receive an invite? The only thing a reputable journalist can do is talk about reality, not hypothetical futures, when comparing the futures of two or more leagues. How would you react if he were comparing the Big 12 and ACC, and said "Well UNC/UVA/VTech/etc. are as good as gone, so let's just take them out of our analysis". Wouldn't make sense right?

The major sticking point of this whole analysis, is that with all of the crap the Big East has endured for the last 12 months, from the media and their own members alike, there is still a clear competitive advantage top to bottom over the MWC. You can talk about Boise's individual BCS runs in the WAC all you like, but the numbers as a league don't lie. The MWC needed historic seasons in the past 5 years from three schools who all lost their head coaches this off season, in order to even make it close with a conference who just added a couple of schools who have been not only CUSA, but national bottom dwellers for these past several years.

My point is that the Big East is unstable, the MWC is not. The thread was about the future of the two conferences, and I think the fact that everyone in the Big East wants to jump ASAP proves it doesn't have a very bright future. Compare that to the MWC, who just had two members thumb their noses at the Big East.

The Big East with Louisville and Rutgers gives it a competitive advantage over the MWC, without them the MWC is a better conference. Yes, the MWC has some God awful teams, but the top half of the conference is much better than the top half of the Big East going forward. The Big East is mostly average programs and crappy programs, the MWC is an elite program, a bunch of average programs, and a bunch of crappy programs. The two are similar, but the MWC is slightly better.

The MWC is basically Boise and the 11 dwarves. Nevada and Fresno are the closest long term competitors to them, and Nevada just lost their hall of fame coach who invented the offense they've been running for decades, while Fresno has been on the decline since the mid-2000's (smacked by SMU in Hawaii Bowl). Look at the Big East, and you have a program that's went toe-to-toe in success with L'Ville, as well as a USF squad that just blew up the recruiting trail for non-aq's, a young UCF program that's only been improving each year in the heart of Florida, SMU spending money out of their ass everytime you look, and Houston building a new 40k seat stadium in a recruiting rich and growing state. If Boise loses more than 2 games in any season, they won't look so elite any longer with a stadium that seats <40k. Seeing Boise trying to throw their weight around wherever possible, I think it is fair to judge them based off of their attendance, especially if the 10 win seasons start to dry up in Idaho. We'll see...
(This post was last modified: 02-21-2013 04:05 PM by Texas2Step.)
02-21-2013 04:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nert Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,700
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 41
I Root For: Utah, CMU, Cincinnati
Location:
Post: #27
RE: SI.com nBE vs. MWC Who has better long term future?
(02-21-2013 04:00 PM)Texas2Step Wrote:  
(02-21-2013 09:10 AM)gocards#1 Wrote:  
(02-21-2013 12:09 AM)Texas2Step Wrote:  
(02-20-2013 10:18 PM)gocards#1 Wrote:  The MWC is less likely to lose members in the future. The Pac 12 and Big 10 don't want anybody from that conference, and it's a step above CUSA, the MAC, and the Sun Belt and at worst on equal footing with the Big East.

Meanwhile there isn't a team in the Big East right now that can't wait to jump. UConn is as good as gone at this point. That alone makes the MWC better in the long term. Who knows what the Big East will look like tomorrow?

When did UConn receive an invite? When did Cincinnati receive an invite? The only thing a reputable journalist can do is talk about reality, not hypothetical futures, when comparing the futures of two or more leagues. How would you react if he were comparing the Big 12 and ACC, and said "Well UNC/UVA/VTech/etc. are as good as gone, so let's just take them out of our analysis". Wouldn't make sense right?

The major sticking point of this whole analysis, is that with all of the crap the Big East has endured for the last 12 months, from the media and their own members alike, there is still a clear competitive advantage top to bottom over the MWC. You can talk about Boise's individual BCS runs in the WAC all you like, but the numbers as a league don't lie. The MWC needed historic seasons in the past 5 years from three schools who all lost their head coaches this off season, in order to even make it close with a conference who just added a couple of schools who have been not only CUSA, but national bottom dwellers for these past several years.

My point is that the Big East is unstable, the MWC is not. The thread was about the future of the two conferences, and I think the fact that everyone in the Big East wants to jump ASAP proves it doesn't have a very bright future. Compare that to the MWC, who just had two members thumb their noses at the Big East.

The Big East with Louisville and Rutgers gives it a competitive advantage over the MWC, without them the MWC is a better conference. Yes, the MWC has some God awful teams, but the top half of the conference is much better than the top half of the Big East going forward. The Big East is mostly average programs and crappy programs, the MWC is an elite program, a bunch of average programs, and a bunch of crappy programs. The two are similar, but the MWC is slightly better.

The MWC is basically Boise and the 11 dwarves. Nevada and Fresno are the closest long term competitors to them, and Nevada just lost their hall of fame coach who invented the offense they've been running for decades, while Fresno has been on the decline since the mid-2000's (smacked by SMU in Hawaii Bowl). Look at the Big East, and you have a program that's went toe-to-toe in success with L'Ville, as well as a USF squad that just blew up the recruiting trail for non-aq's, a young UCF program that's only been improving each year in the heart of Florida, SMU spending money out of their ass everytime you look, and Houston building a new 40k seat stadium in a recruiting rich and growing state. If Boise loses more than 2 games in any season, they won't look so elite any longer with a stadium that seats <40k. Seeing Boise trying to throw their weight around wherever possible, I think it is fair to judge them based off of their attendance, especially if the 10 win seasons start to dry up in Idaho. We'll see...

Just a quick look at the NCAA attendance stats (they had years 2003, and then 2005-2011, by team) - and in not one of those years does Houston outdraw BoiseSt.

BoiseSt increased attendance in all but one season over the preceeding season, and rose from 28,098 in 2003 to 34,018 in 2011. Bronco Stadium's capacity was expanded to 37,000 in 2012.

Houston's attendance numbers start at 21,807 in 2003 (about 7,000 less than BoiseSt in that year), dropped to only 15,054 in 2005, then increased. They cracked the 30,000 number in 2010 and 2011, but were still drew 2-3,000 fewer fans on average than BoiseSt. The old stadium held 71,000+ and the new one will hold 40,000 - only 3,000 more than Bronco stadium can hold.

You might want to try another argument - one where the data actually supports you.
02-21-2013 05:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nert Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,700
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 41
I Root For: Utah, CMU, Cincinnati
Location:
Post: #28
RE: SI.com nBE vs. MWC Who has better long term future?
(02-21-2013 03:30 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  The MWC has no future, #1 it has no TV markets. #2 it is a conf of 1 and the sheeple.
#3. The teams outside of Boise will make at best 1/2 the $$$ that BE will make. Yes it is stable because like the Mac, no one wants anyone they have. #4 Their bowls will no be as good as BE bowls. The BE has upside, the MWC only has down side.

Considering the nBE needed BoiseSt, SDSU and wanted to add 3 other MWC programs (who wouldn't come) to try and get a decent TV offer, this is an awful, awful argument in "support" of the nBE. The nBE's own actions prove this to be completely false.
02-21-2013 05:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
goodknightfl Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 21,110
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 499
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #29
RE: SI.com nBE vs. MWC Who has better long term future?
You miss the point, the BE was not going to be worth more with Boise than without them. That is why Boise started the $$ run with MWC. If BE had added Fresno instead of Tulane or ECU in the last go round schools still would have made 2mil, and travel would have been much worse. The only dif between MWC and BE was MWC was willing to cut pay to all, to keep the one, BE was not willing to do that. For now that has made the MWC happy, long run it will not. And what happens when, and yes I said when Boise falls back to the pack.

People in the gang who are happy over BE deal are very short sighted. In large part this has sealed the fate of all at a low price point. NBE with it's losses got a 40% per school cut, What happens to CUSA with their losses in 3 or 4 years.
02-22-2013 07:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
templefootballfan Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,615
Joined: Jan 2005
Reputation: 162
I Root For: TU & BGSU & TEX
Location: CLAYMONT DE Temple T
Post: #30
RE: SI.com nBE vs. MWC Who has better long term future?
this is why I want UTEP invited to BE
right now BE has a line drawn in the sand
Hous, Dallas, Tulsa.
MWC line is Alberqueque, Denver, Wyoming.

MWC would like line moved to Miss river
BE needs line moved to El Paso, Alberq, Denver, Wym
02-23-2013 12:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
westwolf Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 825
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation: 8
I Root For: CFB
Location:
Post: #31
RE: SI.com nBE vs. MWC Who has better long term future?
Very little chance the BE will exist in 5 years unless it's the name accorded the C-7. The others will be absorbed by the MAC and CUSA. The MWC will continue to fill the sub-Pac 12 void in the West.
(This post was last modified: 02-23-2013 12:54 AM by westwolf.)
02-23-2013 12:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UConn-SMU Offline
often wrong, never in doubt
*

Posts: 12,961
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 373
I Root For: the AAC
Location: Fuzzy's Taco Shop
Post: #32
RE: SI.com nBE vs. MWC Who has better long term future?
(02-23-2013 12:52 AM)westwolf Wrote:  Very little chance the BE will exist in 5 years unless it's the name accorded the C-7. The others will be absorbed by the MAC and CUSA. The MWC will continue to fill the sub-Pac 12 void in the West.

UConn is going to the MAC or C-USA?

Son, you need to do a little more research before you start posting your thoughts.
02-23-2013 10:01 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
sierrajip Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,697
Joined: May 2011
Reputation: 187
I Root For: UCF
Location:
Post: #33
RE: SI.com nBE vs. MWC Who has better long term future?
(02-20-2013 10:18 PM)gocards#1 Wrote:  The MWC is less likely to lose members in the future. The Pac 12 and Big 10 don't want anybody from that conference, and it's a step above CUSA, the MAC, and the Sun Belt and at worst on equal footing with the Big East.

Meanwhile there isn't a team in the Big East right now that can't wait to jump. UConn is as good as gone at this point. That alone makes the MWC better in the long term. Who knows what the Big East will look like tomorrow?

I am sorry, you meant that any team that a Top 5 conference would want. There is the difference. Boise is not wanted, except to the NBE.
(This post was last modified: 02-23-2013 12:51 PM by sierrajip.)
02-23-2013 12:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.