(07-02-2020 11:24 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  ... The rumor coming from Utah State, and it was a rumor because it was never confirmed nor denied by the UTEP AD and President at that time, was that the MWC approached UTEP to join along with Utah State. UTEP said no. San Jose State got the call instead. Whether it was true or not, we will never know.

So the upshot of this is that the answer to the question is, "allegedly".

(07-03-2020 01:39 PM)ESE84 Wrote:  

(07-03-2020 10:57 AM)panite Wrote:  The MWC should expand to 14 for all sports with UTEP and NMST. NMST would add to their BB profile. It would prep the conference for a potential AAC raid should the AAC not get the legislation they are looking for to stay at 11 FB teams once the waiver runs out.

No need for the MWC to expand now because NMSU, UTEP and the other Texas C-USA schools have no where else to go and will accept an MWC invitation if it comes.

And if the AAC goes nationwide by adding BYU and the top programs from the MWC, the remaining MWC might still look like an attractive alternative for the C-USA Texas schools.

Definitely agree with this.

I think the MWC should add 4 TX/Southwestern based schools and go to 16. What could go wrong???

(07-04-2020 02:02 PM)solohawks Wrote:  I think the MWC should add 4 TX/Southwestern based schools and go to 16. What could go wrong???

Big G5 conferences would be nice but the CFP revenue sharing plan makes 10 the optimal G5 size.

(07-04-2020 04:48 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(07-04-2020 02:02 PM)solohawks Wrote:  I think the MWC should add 4 TX/Southwestern based schools and go to 16. What could go wrong???

Big G5 conferences would be nice but the CFP revenue sharing plan makes 10 the optimal G5 size.

Ya missed the joke my friend

(07-04-2020 02:02 PM)solohawks Wrote:  I think the MWC should add 4 TX/Southwestern based schools and go to 16. What could go wrong???

I believe if we let History Be Our Guide but studiously avoid considering the second half of the 1990s, ...

... we can safely say that nothing could go wrong.

Which one would have added more value, UTEP or SJSU?

(07-04-2020 06:37 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(07-02-2020 11:24 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  ... The rumor coming from Utah State, and it was a rumor because it was never confirmed nor denied by the UTEP AD and President at that time, was that the MWC approached UTEP to join along with Utah State. UTEP said no. San Jose State got the call instead. Whether it was true or not, we will never know.

So the upshot of this is that the answer to the question is, "allegedly".

Yes.

(07-04-2020 08:59 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  Which one would have added more value, UTEP or SJSU?

It’s a wash.

Football? SJSU has the edge.
Basketball? UTEP and it’s not even close even if UTEP has been mediocre lately.
Fan support? UTEP but attendance has dropped in both revenue sports.
Facilities? UTEP. By a big margin.
Market? SJSU but they share a pro sports market with Cal and Stanford.
Academics? Might be a wash. Don’t know much about SJSU academics.

UTEP doesn’t really offer much to the MWC these days. At least in 2012 we had basketball and fan support to make a case. Football was averaging about 27k, not impressive but better than some G5’s with better records. The only thing left are our on campus facilities which are better than most G5 schools. Other than than and better academics (Tier One status and over $100 million in research) there’s not much to offer. C-USA will be UTEP’s home for the foreseeable future.

(07-04-2020 02:02 PM)solohawks Wrote:  I think the MWC should add 4 TX/Southwestern based schools and go to 16. What could go wrong???

Check the WAC's historical fall from grace.

WAC-16 failed because you had a group of 5 (Utah, BYU, Colo St, WYO, and AFA) who couldn’t be placated by any alignment set up.

A modern MWC-16 could probably work just fine:

Quad 1: Hawaii, San Diego St, Fresno St, San Jose St (look familiar anyone?)

Quad 2: UNLV, Nevada, Boise St, Utah St

Quad 3: Wyo, Colo St, AFA, UNM (Front Range for Life)

Quad 4: UTEP, UTSA, UNT, Rice

You could either permanently pair 1/2 and 3/4

OR

Like the original plan, 2 and 3 could switch divisions every 2 years.

For the WAC-16, how about fixed divisions of 8 like so:

Division A: Air Force, BYU, Colorado State, Rice, SMU, TCU, Utah, Wyoming
Division B: Fresno State, Hawaii, New Mexico, San Diego State, San Jose State, Tulsa, UNLV, UTEP

Not sure if that would have placated the Airport Meeting Five. Makes for an ugly split though.

It was just not the “gang of five” not playing each other. It was the WAC getting left out of the Alliance and the BCS. Losing the Holiday Bowl where the WAC champion used to play (the Fiesta was that bowl when the Arizona schools were members), the TV deal didn’t pay that much, average of two bids in the NCAAT (basically Tulsa and Utah) and schools that didn’t have anything in common. Rice and Wyoming? Tulsa and UNLV? SMU and Hawaii?

The “gang of five” thought their chances of being relevant again was in creating a brand new conference. They met at the Denver airport and we know the rest of the story. Apparently New Mexico knew but didn’t attend. UNLV and SDSU were told they had to make a decision right away or Fresno and UTEP were getting the call. They more or less succeeded in becoming relevant. Utah was the first nonAQ to get a BCS bowl and humiliated the Big East champion. TCU which joined in 2005 helped in football. They had four BCS bowls from 2004-10 and had a 3-1 record. That BYU-Utah-TCU trio was the best group from a nonAQ league. Even the bottom wasn’t as bad compared to the other nonAQs.

So I don’t blame them for leaving the WAC-16. It sucked they left UTEP behind but the Miners had it coming and deserved it. UTEP paid a huge price for lobbying for the Texas schools to be invited. I just wish UTEP didn’t make the same mistake over and over again on that obsession in being associated with other Texas schools. They don’t care about us. Nothing wrong with that. It’s college sports.

(07-05-2020 10:23 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  For the WAC-16, how about fixed divisions of 8 like so:

Division A: Air Force, BYU, Colorado State, Rice, SMU, TCU, Utah, Wyoming
Division B: Fresno State, Hawaii, New Mexico, San Diego State, San Jose State, Tulsa, UNLV, UTEP

Not sure if that would have placated the Airport Meeting Five. Makes for an ugly split though.

I always thought that if they had invited Nevada instead of Tulsa thing would have worked out better:

Hawaii, SDSU, Fresno St, SJSU, Nevada, UNLV, UNM, UTEP

Utah, BYU, Wyo, Colo St, AFA, SMU, TCU, Rice

(07-05-2020 01:08 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 10:23 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  For the WAC-16, how about fixed divisions of 8 like so:

Division A: Air Force, BYU, Colorado State, Rice, SMU, TCU, Utah, Wyoming
Division B: Fresno State, Hawaii, New Mexico, San Diego State, San Jose State, Tulsa, UNLV, UTEP

Not sure if that would have placated the Airport Meeting Five. Makes for an ugly split though.

I always thought that if they had invited Nevada instead of Tulsa thing would have worked out better:

Hawaii, SDSU, Fresno St, SJSU, Nevada, UNLV, UNM, UTEP

Utah, BYU, Wyo, Colo St, AFA, SMU, TCU, Rice

Tulsa was invited when Houston decided they would rather try their chances with C-USA. If I’m not mistaken, Nevada didn’t start playing FBS or Div I-A as it was called back then until 1996, the same year Idaho and Boise State moved up and the WAC-16 started.

EDIT: Nevada moved up in 1992. The WAC-16 expansion happened in 1994. There was no way BYU was going to be happy in inviting a school that was about to start its third season in Div I-A. At least TCU, SMU and Rice had the SWC pedigree and Tulsa was an independent for several years. But you’re right, looking back, Nevada made sense.

BYU was a no vote on expansion. The schools that would need to support Nevada would have the Yes’s, which I believe were Hawaii, Fresno St, San Diego St, UTEP, and Colorado St.

(07-05-2020 01:53 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  BYU was a no vote on expansion. The schools that would need to support Nevada would have the Yes’s, which I believe were Hawaii, Fresno St, San Diego St, UTEP, and Colorado St.

We’ll never know. Fresno State left the Big West for the WAC in 1992. Nevada was their replacement. Don’t know how Fresno would’ve voted if inviting Nevada was on the table.

Karl Benson is usually blamed for the WAC-16 expansion. He wasn’t the commissioner when the expansion was discussed and voted. He took over right after and had to deal with that mess.

If the Mountain West decided to expand to 16 with four Texas schools, just like their parent conference did, then the MW indeed would be the next conference to try to split, which was the topic of my other thread.

It's all tying together.

Houston messed the whole thing up
Both Tulsa and Tulane tried taking Houston’s spot
The front range HATED being separated from Utah/BYU
UTEP/UNM were ok with being aligned with the SWC 4
The others hated it

Don’t forget the WAC 16 secured an affiliation with the Cotton Bowl.