MWC Expansion (long)

Big Blue's House is intended for general sports talk, sharing ideas, announcements, etc.
wacfan08
Posts: 771
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 2:29 pm
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 2 times

MWC Expansion (long)

Post by wacfan08 » December 13th, 2010, 2:30 pm

This has been very interesting to watch. And it is even more interesting to read other board and hear other fans thoughts. Here are a the most common things I have found. I just decided to vent here instead of on other boards. Feel free to let me know if I am in the wrong. But this is how I see it.


1. WHY USU/UTEP ? When we can get SMU/Houston/Tulsa.
Never going to happen. If they where interested they would have already moved over before Nevada/Fresno. They aren't interested in the MWC. Get over it. They said no already. It is questionable what UTEP should do. The MWC is not what is was a year ago. Oh and Baylor wont join either.

2. Just stay at 10.
Yes the MWC could do this but if they do they will end up at 9. Air Force has OOC games that they want to play and have to play every year. Army/Navy. They also want to continue to play Notre Damn. As well as a OCC game on the east coast every year NYC/ Balitmore. If the MWC stays at 10 that only leaves 3 OOC games per year. ( +1 for years you play at Hawaii ) Air Force wants more OCC games. Air Force doesn't worry about travel costs. They travel on a cargo plane. They drive a bus right on to the plane and fly it where ever they want and drive the bus right off the plane. By going to 12 you add one OCC game and 2 years you play at Hawaii.

3. USU/ UTEP bring nothing to the MWC.
by adding USU and UTEP MWC teams not only would get a championship game which could be worth up to $150,000 per team but every MWC team also gets a extra OCC game. So rather then playing Wyoming or UNLV the 2nd weekend in September they could be playing Virgina Tech/ Oklahoma/ BYU/ Utah / Texas Tech / UCLA who ever and depending on if your school choices is to take a home game for OOC or a Road game it could be worth $500,000 or more depending on who and where This all adds up to more money. For Example Texas ( 12 team conference) played 12 games this year. 3 ROAD GAME.. THAT IS 3. They played 4 OCC games.. All at home. I have heard a Home game for Texas is worth $4 - $5 million... Now I know no one in the MWC is texas but you get my point. Compare that to USC ( 10 team conference ) They played 6 home games. Texas played 8. And 1/2 home games. ( 8 in Austin ) ( 1 in Dallas )

The BCS will judge AQ status based on the MWC membership as of December 2011 So Hawaii / Fresno / Nevada don't bring anything either because they don't count as membership for the next round of 4 years for BCS games. TCU and Boise will count because Boise will be in their 1st year in the MWC and TCU will be in their last..


4. USU does not get the UTAH market and UTEP does not get the Texas Market.
This is true. USU does not deliver the entire UTAH market. However would anyone in Utah really care about Nevada and Fresno if they weren't in the same conference as USU? It keeps teams in the news in other areas. Would a SLTRIB writer ( with a AP vote ) be more aware of Nevada if they didn't play anyone in Utah? Would USU retain the comcast customers in Utah if they were in the MWC. NO>>> but if USU was in the MWC they wouldn't lose as much. WHY.. USU PLAYS UTAH AND BYU every year. ( hopefully) Now UTEP.. well what does Nevada bring that UTEP doesn't bring ??? UTEP brings the sun bowl. Nevada has a top 25 program and can't draw 20,000 people in area of 500,000. :shock: :shock: There are alot of people in Cache Valley that want to support the football team. Years and Years of losing has made people slow to warm up. But if was to go 7 - 5 ( nevermind being top 25) USU would pack Rommey. Look at the support the basketball team gets. Look at what the basketball team charges for tickets $17 bucks and they still get people out. USU is the only game in town. It is not like our attendance number go up and down based on if the Jazz are in town

5. USU and UTEP make zero sense.
based on what ? regional footprint? tradional rivals ? similar size school ? State ran schools ? Road games that fans can drive to? I don't understand this statement.

6. Football drives the bus basketball doesn't matter.
Football drives the bus ( true ) basketball doesn't matter ( false ) If basketball doesn't matter why doesn't the football playing schools of the Big East break off and make a new conference why carry the weight of the non football school ? Because basketball matters. Why would the big east allow Notre Damn to park non football sports there ? They play football in the big east and if basketball doesn't matter why carry the waste ? Why would the WCC let BYU join ? Why because basketball matters. Now granted it likley 85% footbal and 15% basketball. But if the MWC was to put 4 or 5 teams in the NCAA do you not think that would carry over to other sports ? Can you be that foolish?

Ok that is my rant for the day. I feel a little better. Here is hoping for a bright future for the current Aggies and future Aggies as well. Now USU may or may not get in. But these comments are driving me nuts.
Last edited by wacfan08 on December 13th, 2010, 2:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.



User avatar
SoCalAggie
Posts: 903
Joined: November 2nd, 2010, 11:10 pm
Location: Anaheim Hills, California
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: MWC Expansion (long)

Post by SoCalAggie » December 13th, 2010, 2:42 pm

as one Aggie over on their message board put it, these are largely emotional issues that are not based on good business practices. Many MWC teams have been able to look down on us for quite some time and they are unhappy at the prospect of not being able to to do that any more. That with the rage over BYU, which was hardly our fault, no more than Hawaii, Fresno and Reno, but it was our School Pres who was the most vocal about it, and we turned the MWC away with their initial contact, so we're looked at as byu's lap dog.

So yea you are correct, USU does make more sense than not. No they don't get a great Football program with us, but they do get good basketball, they do get to keep the Utah market, they do get to keep travel costs down, they do get to keep a good regional footprint, etc.


Drifting through a world that's torn and tattered, every thought I have don't mean a thing...

Rabidchild
Posts: 2620
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 10:22 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 25 times

Re: MWC Expansion (long)

Post by Rabidchild » December 13th, 2010, 2:47 pm

Good thoughts overall. But can we please stop citing to the 3 OOC games vs. 4 OOC games as one of the negatives of staying at 10 teams as opposed to expanding to 12? If the MWC decides that an 8-game conference schedule is better, it can play 8 games with a 10-team league as easily as it can play 8 games with a 12-team league. There is no rule saying that if you have a 10 team league, you have to play everyone in the league (resuling in 9 conference games and only 3 OOC games). You could play every other team but 1 and that would give you 8 games and 4 OOC games. This seems to be a red herring argument to me.


I'm a reasonable man, get off my case.

wacfan08
Posts: 771
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 2:29 pm
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: MWC Expansion (long)

Post by wacfan08 » December 13th, 2010, 2:55 pm

Rabidchild wrote:Good thoughts overall. But can we please stop citing to the 3 OOC games vs. 4 OOC games as one of the negatives of staying at 10 teams as opposed to expanding to 12? If the MWC decides that an 8-game conference schedule is better, it can play 8 games with a 10-team league as easily as it can play 8 games with a 12-team league. There is no rule saying that if you have a 10 team league, you have to play everyone in the league (resuling in 9 conference games and only 3 OOC games). You could play every other team but 1 and that would give you 8 games and 4 OOC games. This seems to be a red herring argument to me.

True they could do that.



User avatar
OKAggie
Posts: 2565
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 8:32 am
Location: Tulsa, OK
Has thanked: 116 times
Been thanked: 348 times

Re: MWC Expansion (long)

Post by OKAggie » December 13th, 2010, 3:09 pm

Rabidchild wrote:Good thoughts overall. But can we please stop citing to the 3 OOC games vs. 4 OOC games as one of the negatives of staying at 10 teams as opposed to expanding to 12? If the MWC decides that an 8-game conference schedule is better, it can play 8 games with a 10-team league as easily as it can play 8 games with a 12-team league. There is no rule saying that if you have a 10 team league, you have to play everyone in the league (resuling in 9 conference games and only 3 OOC games). You could play every other team but 1 and that would give you 8 games and 4 OOC games. This seems to be a red herring argument to me.
Agree, Rabid. The Big Ten with its eleven teams has been playing an 8-game schedule since forever. The Pac-10 with its ten teams has been playing a 9-game schedule for the past few years, but played an 8-game schedule for a long time.


Nobody here knows anything.

AgSpaceCase
Posts: 627
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 10:45 am
Location: West Point, Utah
Has thanked: 81 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Re: MWC Expansion (long)

Post by AgSpaceCase » December 13th, 2010, 3:33 pm

Just one thought that I have had running though my head for a while about the whole 'football is all that matters', 'football drives the bus' argument that gets spewed all over. Many like to reference the expansion talk this summer with BIG 10, 12, PAC 10-16 as justification to rule out USU and other schools since those moves this summer were entirely football market driven. that has rubbed me the wrong way for a while and here is why.

First of all neither WAC and the MWC are BCS AQ conferences, and what is more neither have a shoot of becoming a BCS AQ for another 6 years at least. There are two years left for this period (no way either conference meets requirements), and then it would be another 4 years before the next decision is made, so for at least 6 years we are talking non BCS AQ football money and market.

Second - NCAA basketball tournament money is not trifling. With each game appearance at around a million plus even in the BCS world the basketball money is still a major driver. For the Big East the football schools aren't yet willing to walk away from the extra basketball money the non football schools bring in to the tune of have a ridiculous 17 member conference that is more than likely still growing.

In Standard BCS AQ world having 30 mill plus on bowl revenue and 'only' around 10-15 mill in basketball revenue means that football will not only drive the bus, but has police escorts and mobile pit crew. For the MWC or WAC we are talking 5-10 mill in basketball revenue and similar 5-10 mill in bowl revenue, although the bowl revenue takes a huge hit due to travel expenses and gets a boost with a BCS year. for a non AQ conference the argument that football drives the bus doesn't hold water. TV contracts can be neglected in the discussion as they are for all sports and not sport specific (in general). So this year the WAC will gain more conference revenue from basketball than form football and the MWC will have more from football. Either one can't afford to neglect basketball and since there is another 6 years before AQ status can be gained there is no way football can be the sole designator.

OK Rant over. I feel better.


"Due to budget cutbacks the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned off...."

User avatar
Mr. Sneelock
Posts: 5790
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 10:09 am
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 346 times

Re: MWC Expansion (long)

Post by Mr. Sneelock » December 13th, 2010, 3:50 pm

^ I actually posted something similar to this a while back. In the non-AQ conferences, basketball tournament credits sometimes outpace the bowl monies. That is especially true where you have a conference that can get 4-6 bids to the NCAA tournament. That money is nothing to sneeze at.


Formerly TulsAGGIE

AgSpaceCase
Posts: 627
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 10:45 am
Location: West Point, Utah
Has thanked: 81 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Re: MWC Expansion (long)

Post by AgSpaceCase » December 13th, 2010, 4:09 pm

I think you were the one who got the idea into my head. Dangit! I read the MWC board on occasion recently and also the WAC scout board and this argument keeps coming up so much i just couldn't hold it in any longer. :bangwall: :bangwall: :bangwall:


"Due to budget cutbacks the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned off...."

JasonJensen
Posts: 1154
Joined: November 18th, 2010, 7:46 am
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: MWC Expansion (long)

Post by JasonJensen » December 13th, 2010, 4:41 pm

Mr. Sneelock wrote:^ I actually posted something similar to this a while back. In the non-AQ conferences, basketball tournament credits sometimes outpace the bowl monies. That is especially true where you have a conference that can get 4-6 bids to the NCAA tournament. That money is nothing to sneeze at.
Finally someone who gets it. I'll be the first to admit I am a football guy first with basketball second, but to discount the benefits of a quality basketball program in your conference is asinine. Sure, it ain't football. But college basketball is HUGE! More people place bets on the NCAA tourney than even the superbowl. Now if they NCAA/BCS or whoever controls college football were smart, they would have a football play off system that would dwarf any of the BCS earnings that are received today but that's another topic.

The things that does hurt a little that they like to bring us is how our BB team is always one and done so we don't bring a whole lot of money from the NCAA in the first place. I am not sure what the facts are as to how much you bring in for one NCAA tourney game.



Steve509
Posts: 996
Joined: November 25th, 2010, 1:41 pm
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: MWC Expansion (long)

Post by Steve509 » December 13th, 2010, 6:20 pm

Okay WACfan, I'll play devil's advocate since I've been following this closely on the MWC board.

#1) NV & FSU were invited in response to the Project. The weren't wanted, but they were needed. Houston & SMU would have been invited over NV & FSU if just "normal expansion" was taking place. However Hair wanted to blow up the Project and he knew exactly how to do it.

#2) AFA has no problem with a 10 team format. The voted to add BSU which would have gotten them to 10 and they did the same for Hawaii.

#3) It has been pointed out on the MWC board that there is nothing to suggest that if further expansion is to take place, that USU and UTEP are a package deal.

#4) Supposedly UTEP draws well in El Paso and the fans in El Paso watch the Miners games on TV. They also slightly improve the conf SOS.
As far as what NV brings that UTEP doesn't, again, NV was invited only to blow up the Project. Even NV fans know that and they don't deny it. It's been mentioned that NV would have to have a couple of more seasons like this one before the MWC would invite them and even then they'd only get invited in their addition would make AQ status possible.

#5) I'm guessing it's because not enough value is added to improve the bottom line or to get them any closer to AQ status.

#6) BB really doesn't matter. There is no reason to believe that if USU were in the MWC that the MWC would get another bid. They believe that most years they are a 3 team league. 4 on a good year. They don't think that USU changes that in any way.

That's the best I can do. I'm sure if you posted this on the MWC board, you'd get plenty of replies.



User avatar
Quelch
Posts: 641
Joined: November 12th, 2010, 8:58 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: MWC Expansion (long)

Post by Quelch » December 13th, 2010, 6:46 pm

My only comment is that we Aggie Fans think we have it all figured out. At this point in time, I doubt that even the New MWC Presidents know how this will all turn out. This is going to be a long, long, wait and see. It will not happen in January 2011 like many believe. There are many pros and cons to including our Aggies. There will me many more conferences trying to position themselves for the best possible position for each of their own individual situations. I believe that our University President work to do what is ever in the best interest of USU. That is unlike many University Presidents that we have had in the past years here.

Let the chips fall where they may! If we stay in the WAC, so be it! If that is the crappy card we are dealt, we need to make the most of it.

Of all of the University Presidents in the new MWC, I wonder how many will pour their souls into keeping USU out of their Reign Deer Games?



AGGIEFIGHT
Posts: 620
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 8:46 am
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 71 times

Re: MWC Expansion (long)

Post by AGGIEFIGHT » December 13th, 2010, 7:26 pm

Nice analysis wac fan08
One other point to add to your list is the reduction of travel costs for the non-revenue
sports teams. If their were two divisions based on geography, travel costs could be
cut by a substantial sum. Boise, Reno, Wyoming, Colorada state could charter buses to logan
instead of flying commercial. When your arranging travel for a 100 person track team this
adds up to big bucks. The truth is the the mwc revenues will be less with the departures and I
believe travel costs will be a factor in their decision to expand.



User avatar
BigBlueDart
Pick'em Champ - '17 FB Predict the Score
Posts: 8132
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 7:57 am
Location: Syracuse, UT
Has thanked: 82 times
Been thanked: 315 times

Re: MWC Expansion (long)

Post by BigBlueDart » December 13th, 2010, 9:03 pm

AGGIEFIGHT wrote:Nice analysis wac fan08
One other point to add to your list is the reduction of travel costs for the non-revenue
sports teams. If their were two divisions based on geography, travel costs could be
cut by a substantial sum. Boise, Reno, Wyoming, Colorada state could charter buses to logan
instead of flying commercial. When your arranging travel for a 100 person track team this
adds up to big bucks. The truth is the the mwc revenues will be less with the departures and I
believe travel costs will be a factor in their decision to expand.
One thing that I've seen thrown out there (usually with regards to Hawai'i) is that only a few sports actually have to travel to all the other schools in the conference. Track & Field and Cross Country are not under this obligation, as I understand it. They are perfectly welcome to just attend whatever meets they see fit and then show up for the conference championship meet. I'm going to guess that Swimming & Diving, Gymnastics, Golf and Tennis are like this too. Football, basketball, volleyball, softball and baseball would all have to travel. I may be wrong on some of these, and I'm probably forgetting some sports, but I'm just trying to flesh out the thought, here.



wacfan08
Posts: 771
Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 2:29 pm
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: MWC Expansion (long)

Post by wacfan08 » December 13th, 2010, 9:31 pm

AGGIEFIGHT wrote:Nice analysis wac fan08
One other point to add to your list is the reduction of travel costs for the non-revenue
sports teams. If their were two divisions based on geography, travel costs could be
cut by a substantial sum. Boise, Reno, Wyoming, Colorada state could charter buses to logan
instead of flying commercial. When your arranging travel for a 100 person track team this
adds up to big bucks.
The truth is the the mwc revenues will be less with the departures and I
believe travel costs will be a factor in their decision to expand.

Hawaii board is reporting that the deal with the BW was $500 per player / $0 for staff. :headscratch: ?? :noidea:



User avatar
Crusaders
Posts: 145
Joined: November 24th, 2010, 9:29 pm
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 0

Re: MWC Expansion (long)

Post by Crusaders » December 14th, 2010, 2:04 am

wacfan08 wrote:
AGGIEFIGHT wrote:Nice analysis wac fan08
One other point to add to your list is the reduction of travel costs for the non-revenue
sports teams. If their were two divisions based on geography, travel costs could be
cut by a substantial sum. Boise, Reno, Wyoming, Colorada state could charter buses to logan
instead of flying commercial. When your arranging travel for a 100 person track team this
adds up to big bucks.
The truth is the the mwc revenues will be less with the departures and I
believe travel costs will be a factor in their decision to expand.

Hawaii board is reporting that the deal with the BW was $500 per player / $0 for staff. :headscratch: ?? :noidea:

As it stands now, we don't know what the amount is in regards to staff. At least that's how I took it.



Locked Previous topicNext topic