20 game schedule.

nvspuds · Post by **nvspuds** » May 19th, 2020, 9:33 am

I think USU has always had it tough getting schools to come to Logan. However, it hasn't held you back in any way. You rose to the top in the BW, the WAC and now the MW. I am sure you see yourself as a major player in MW basketball.

It is possible that this has nothing to do with fairness or helping schools get their act together. Maybe it is just about voting blocks and the quest for more power.

Who gets to dictate policy is worthy goal.

brownjeans · Post by **brownjeans** » May 19th, 2020, 9:39 am

Has the Ivy League ever had more than 1 invite to the dance - an at-large invite?

nvspuds · Post by **nvspuds** » May 19th, 2020, 9:59 am

nvspuds · Post by **nvspuds** » May 19th, 2020, 10:06 am

I don't think it will help or hurt the conference either..I do think it is needlessly divisive though.

Post by **Aglicious** » May 19th, 2020, 10:07 am

nvspuds wrote: ↑
May 19th, 2020, 9:33 am
I think USU has always had it tough getting schools to come to Logan. However, it hasn't held you back in any way. You rose to the top in the BW, the WAC and now the MW. I am sure you see yourself as a major player in MW basketball.

It is possible that this has nothing to do with fairness or helping schools get their act together. Maybe it is just about voting blocks and the quest for more power.

Who gets to dictate policy is worthy goal.

You are correct in this. What I don't get is why it has been that way at every stop for he Aggies. History and the numbers bear out that USU is one of the top programs in the MW, yet we find ourselves year after year hearing about "the big three" needing to be good in order to raise the profile of the conference? I don't buy into the big three or any of their reputations being better than USU or Nevada for that matter. I feel like this is something made up in the minds of those that formed the original MWC and they still cling to that idea. Yet, reality is that both football and basketball have been largely ruled by the WAC newcomers and not the old remains of the original MWC. This tends to lead to fans of the original MWC schools thinking the conference has declined in some way or has lost its former glory or luster.

Anyway, back to "the big three"; SDSU was straight awful until Fisher arrived so I'm not sure why their 10-12 years of success makes them so important to the conference profile. UNLV is 30 years and 2 conferences removed from being relevant, yet they still are talked about as a top dog. I can tell you for a fact that Vegas couldn't care less about the Rebels and they become even less and less relevant with each professional sport that arrives in the valley. UNM also relies on history and the reputation of a venue but has not been a consistent contender under the current MWC membership.

I don't think the Aggie's scheduling fortune changes until they do one thing - damage in the NCAA tourney. That is where the Gonzagas and Butlers have made their name. We have the venue, the home court reputation, the regular season and conference titles. We have had 2-3 really good coaches over the last 25 years or so who have helped maintained these things but we still lack that one thing that separates us from those other mid-major powers and that is NCAA tourney success. If we had 2-3 sweet sixteen runs within that period I think we would have seen that getting a few P5 home games on the home schedule wouldn't be as hard as it's been.

slcagg · Post by **slcagg** » May 19th, 2020, 10:16 am

Aglicious wrote: ↑
May 19th, 2020, 10:07 am

nvspuds wrote: ↑
May 19th, 2020, 9:33 am
I think USU has always had it tough getting schools to come to Logan. However, it hasn't held you back in any way. You rose to the top in the BW, the WAC and now the MW. I am sure you see yourself as a major player in MW basketball.

It is possible that this has nothing to do with fairness or helping schools get their act together. Maybe it is just about voting blocks and the quest for more power.

Who gets to dictate policy is worthy goal.
You are correct in this. What I don't get is why it has been that way at every stop for he Aggies. History and the numbers bear out that USU is one of the top programs in the MW, yet we find ourselves year after year hearing about "the big three" needing to be good in order to raise the profile of the conference? I don't buy into the big three or any of their reputations being better than USU or Nevada for that matter. I feel like this is something made up in the minds of those that formed the original MWC and they still cling to that idea. Yet, reality is that both football and basketball have been largely ruled by the WAC newcomers and not the old remains of the original MWC. This tends to lead to fans of the original MWC schools thinking the conference has declined in some way or has lost its former glory or luster.

Anyway, back to "the big three"; SDSU was straight awful until Fisher arrived so I'm not sure why their 10-12 years of success makes them so important to the conference profile. UNLV is 30 years and 2 conferences removed from being relevant, yet they still are talked about as a top dog. I can tell you for a fact that Vegas couldn't care less about the Rebels and they become even less and less relevant with each professional sport that arrives in the valley. UNM also relies on history and the reputation of a venue but has not been a consistent contender under the current MWC membership.

I don't think the Aggie's scheduling fortune changes until they do one thing - damage in the NCAA tourney. That is where the Gonzagas and Butlers have made their name. We have the venue, the home court reputation, the regular season and conference titles. We have had 2-3 really good coaches over the last 25 years or so who have helped maintained these things but we still lack that one thing that separates us from those other mid-major powers and that is NCAA tourney success. If we had 2-3 sweet sixteen runs within that period I think we would have seen that getting a few P5 home games on the home schedule wouldn't be as hard as it's been.

I think in addition to unlv and SDSU having solid programs in the past, their cities also make it possible to add high quality opponents. Note New Mexico has had a very good program and are in a decent size city but struggle getting teams in to the Pit.

nvspuds · Post by **nvspuds** » May 19th, 2020, 10:20 am

This isn't just about home games. It means 2 less chances to get a good roadie or neutral site game.

nvspuds · Post by **nvspuds** » May 19th, 2020, 11:15 am

It is filtering out a bit..It appears the 4 no votes were SDSU, UNLV, NV and AFA. You folks have found yourself in a significant voting block.

Aggie formerly in Hawaii · Post by **Aggie formerly in Hawaii** » May 19th, 2020, 4:25 pm

brownjeans wrote: ↑
May 19th, 2020, 9:39 am
Has the Ivy League ever had more than 1 invite to the dance - an at-large invite?

I highly doubt it.

nvspuds · Post by **nvspuds** » May 19th, 2020, 4:41 pm

I believe Princeton received an at large in 2016. It should be noted that until recently the IVY League did not play a conference tournament.

I think the league is better at basketball than the MW..Just my opinion. I am not a huge fan of the MW..But that is not a secret.

GUS · Post by **GUS** » May 19th, 2020, 4:58 pm

I just don't see any downside to this for USU. Every year USU has had to fill the schedule with a couple of really bad schools. I'm not talking about the two non-counting games each year. There are still plenty of non-conference games to play each season. If you could guarantee only one game against SJSU and Air Force each year, then I would be all for going back to 18 games. It seems like USU always gets two games against those teams.

Yossarian · Post by **Yossarian** » May 19th, 2020, 5:01 pm

nvspuds wrote: ↑
May 19th, 2020, 4:41 pm
I believe Princeton received an at large in 2016. It should be noted that until recently the IVY League did not play a conference tournament.

I think the league is better at basketball than the MW..Just my opinion. I am not a huge fan of the MW..But that is not a secret.

As an Aggie fan, I am very pleased with the Mt. West. Knowing how close USU was to hoeing the row that our sister school - New Mexico State - is, the MW is a godsend for USU sports. Regional opponents of similar size and resources is exactly where USU should be. Until USU starts racking up a string of football championships, the Aggies have no business seeking greener pastures.

Is your problem with the MW administrative? or you don't like the member institutions?

The one problem I have with the conference is the lack of ability to maintain a decent Bowl Game for the football champion. With a conference footprint in both Las Vegas and San Diegor, it is unpardonable that the conference can not get a bowl affiliation in either city.

Yossarian · Post by **Yossarian** » May 19th, 2020, 5:04 pm

GUS wrote: ↑
May 19th, 2020, 4:58 pm
I just don't see any downside to this for USU. Every year USU has had to fill the schedule with a couple of really bad schools. I'm not talking about the two non-counting games each year. There are still plenty of non-conference games to play each season. If you could guarantee only one game against SJSU and Air Force each year, then I would be all for going back to 18 games. It seems like USU always gets two games against those teams.

Yes.

Adding to games from the pool of schools in the Western Division of the MW (not named SJSU) is almost certainly an upgrade to the schedule that normally includes some very sorry teams. If the Aggies keep playing those 300-plus ranked teams in the OOC and go to the 20-game conference schedule, it is a horrible idea.

brownjeans · Post by **brownjeans** » May 19th, 2020, 5:29 pm

This increases the importance of putting together a quality OoC schedule. That sounds pretty good to me.

nvspuds · Post by **nvspuds** » May 19th, 2020, 5:33 pm

I am not nuts about the MW because it is essentially a marriage of convenience for schools without other options. While it is okay for football and I really have no complaint there, I don't think it works all that well for the other sports. The travel is bad. the uneven number of schools for basketball and other oly sports is bad.

There doesn't appear to be much communal spirit as this latest vote demonstrates.

I have mentioned this before as something that appeals to me.

Knowing no situation is perfect I would like to something done to ease travel time and cost for oly sports.

I would keep the MW as a football only conference with all 12 members. The schools could then be free to work out a more efficient conference arrangement. Ideally, Nevada, UNLV Fresno and SDSU would stick together in some sort of California based conference.

USU could be a building block in a Mountain Time Zone Conference.

We could schedule non conference match ups between the various places folks land.

Yossarian · Post by **Yossarian** » May 19th, 2020, 6:12 pm

I think a regional intermountain conference for Olympic sports would work great. I think women's gymnastics already does this. A conference with USU, BSU, CSU, Wyoming, Utah Valley, BYU, Weber State, Idaho, Idaho State, Northern Colorado, Univ. of Denver, and the like makes great sense for Oly sports.

nvspuds · Post by **nvspuds** » May 19th, 2020, 6:17 pm

Me too

brownjeans · Post by **brownjeans** » May 19th, 2020, 6:33 pm

I think preserving true "regionals" in the NCAA tournament makes sense. No one wants to make sense.

nvspuds · Post by **nvspuds** » May 19th, 2020, 6:44 pm

If you guys don't want NM we will take him in the American West Conference

NM/GCU

UNLV/SDSU

FSU/ SJSU

Irvine/UCSB

NV

9 schools is perfect. The travel is easy and cheap. Lets make it so..

2004AG · Post by **2004AG** » May 19th, 2020, 6:47 pm

Yossarian wrote:I think a regional intermountain conference for Olympic sports would work great. I think women's gymnastics already does this. A conference with USU, BSU, CSU, Wyoming, Utah Valley, BYU, Weber State, Idaho, Idaho State, Northern Colorado, Univ. of Denver, and the like makes great sense for Oly sports.

Utah Valley? Weber State? Idaho State? Northern Colorado?

No thanks.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

nvspuds · Post by **nvspuds** » May 19th, 2020, 6:50 pm

It is not important who is in your conference..My fever dream only involves who is in my make believe conference.

USU78 · Post by **USU78** » May 19th, 2020, 6:55 pm

nvspuds wrote: ↑
May 19th, 2020, 6:44 pm
If you guys don't want NM we will take him in the American West Conference

NM/GCU

UNLV/SDSU

FSU/ SJSU

Irvine/UCSB

NV

9 schools is perfect. The travel is easy and cheap. Lets make it so..

So much hate for the NewMags

2004AG · Post by **2004AG** » May 19th, 2020, 7:48 pm

nvspuds wrote:It is not important who is in your conference..My fever dream only involves who is in my make believe conference.

Nevada would be a lot better off in your dream conference than we would. Yikes.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

nvspuds · Post by **nvspuds** » May 19th, 2020, 7:57 pm

If you were to keep NM you could have this

USU/Boise St

WY/CSU

AFA/Denver

NM/NMSU

GCU

sneed · Post by **sneed** » May 19th, 2020, 8:46 pm

This is good for us. We STRUGGLE to fill a schedule. Will be easier now that we have two less games to fill. We don’t just struggle to get good teams to play us - we can’t get ANYONE we want to play to come to Logan. NMST? Even like San Diego. It’s very weird. We have got St Mary’s - that’s nice (is that the best we have done in the last 15 years?) USC was cool but that was tied to football - we should try that more.

I imagine we will play like last year - 2 conference games the beginning of Dec then a few OOC then back to conference games when school is back in session.

nvspuds · Post by **nvspuds** » May 19th, 2020, 9:20 pm

Good for you bad for Nevada.

Yossarian · Post by **Yossarian** » May 19th, 2020, 11:38 pm

2004AG wrote: ↑
May 19th, 2020, 6:47 pm

Yossarian wrote:I think a regional intermountain conference for Olympic sports would work great. I think women's gymnastics already does this. A conference with USU, BSU, CSU, Wyoming, Utah Valley, BYU, Weber State, Idaho, Idaho State, Northern Colorado, Univ. of Denver, and the like makes great sense for Oly sports.
Utah Valley? Weber State? Idaho State? Northern Colorado?

No thanks.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If we're talking Olympic sports (not football or basketball), why not? Tennis, track and field, cross country, gymnastics, golf, soccer, softball, swimming/diving, volleyball....... why not? What does it really matter? You may actually get more fans to show up against more regional opponents that have local recruits on the teams. Travel would be much better, I would think (you could bus to a lot more games, as opposed to flying to every game). I don't see how saving money on Oly sports with the potential for increased attendance would be a bad thing. The path to qualifying for national tournaments would be much easier, as well.

Jjoey52 · Post by **Jjoey52** » May 20th, 2020, 6:08 pm

I prefer the 20 in conference schedule. The home OOC schedule is generally lousy with a few exceptions. It also makes for a more balanced schedule.

nvspuds · Post by **nvspuds** » May 20th, 2020, 6:33 pm

The A10 just rejected the 20 game schedule for them.

I have been thinking about the logistics. You need 10 weeks to play 20 games. You also need another week for the MW tourney.

So that means conference season likely can't start in January. Should the league games start before the ooc part is over for most teams? They did it this past season but with 2 extra games they will need start a bit earlier. December is pretty open until the 15th or so and them finals happen. Right after that is Christmas. That does not leave a lot of time in December.

Even with the 20 game you can still have 11 ooc games. Some schools can pick up a nice tournament and get 3 or 4 in over a long weekend but not all MW get those tourneys every year. That could mean cramming 11 games into a 4 or 5 week window. That is doable but not easy.. Matching up free dates to get a game is always challenging and the small window limits the open dates.

However, the conference has voted to go to 20..My question is this. Should the MW add another school and go to 22 games? That would mean you only have to find 9 games. Maybe 4 at home and 5 on the road or neutral. that would seem to solve all your problems scheduling. If it helps you it could help other schools too.

brownjeans · Post by **brownjeans** » May 20th, 2020, 9:40 pm

nvspuds wrote: ↑
May 20th, 2020, 6:33 pm
The A10 just rejected the 20 game schedule for them.

I have been thinking about the logistics. You need 10 weeks to play 20 games. You also need another week for the MW tourney.

So that means conference season likely can't start in January. Should the league games start before the ooc part is over for most teams? They did it this past season but with 2 extra games they will need start a bit earlier. December is pretty open until the 15th or so and them finals happen. Right after that is Christmas. That does not leave a lot of time in December.

Even with the 20 game you can still have 11 ooc games. Some schools can pick up a nice tournament and get 3 or 4 in over a long weekend but not all MW get those tourneys every year. That could mean cramming 11 games into a 4 or 5 week window. That is doable but not easy.. Matching up free dates to get a game is always challenging and the small window limits the open dates.

However, the conference has voted to go to 20..My question is this. Should the MW add another school and go to 22 games? That would mean you only have to find 9 games. Maybe 4 at home and 5 on the road or neutral. that would seem to solve all your problems scheduling. If it helps you it could help other schools too.

This thing really seems to bother you

nvspuds · Post by **nvspuds** » May 20th, 2020, 10:09 pm

No I respect the majority vote. I actually think it will also solve a number of problems by adding another school and going to a 22 game schedule.

While I don't think it helps Nevada it does help other schools..That is why I have moved on to talking about logistics..

I actually think it will also solve a number of problems by adding another school and going to a 22 game schedule.

One other thing that might help is to establish something as close as possible to travel partners

USU/Boise

WY/CSU

AFA/NM

UNLV/SDSU

FSU/SJSU

The oddball is Nevada. Maybe the MW could look to a school like Davis or Sac St to round out the 12 and give Nevada a nearby travel partner.

That might make it easier to have schools alternate between two at home two on the road.

brownjeans · Post by **brownjeans** » May 20th, 2020, 10:55 pm

We do need travel partners and a more consistent schedule. Games seem to be on almost random days of the week

OKAggie · Post by **OKAggie** » May 21st, 2020, 11:14 am

brownjeans wrote: ↑
May 20th, 2020, 10:55 pm
We do need travel partners and a more consistent schedule. Games seem to be on almost random days of the week

Not random. Tuesdays and Wednesdays and sometimes Sundays to fulfill the MWC TV contract. Saturdays otherwise.

Travel partners don’t do much good unless you have a Thursday/Saturday or Saturday/Monday TV setup.

bwcrc · Post by **bwcrc** » May 21st, 2020, 12:44 pm

Travel partners are nice, but I think trying to arrange the schedule for better travel convenience would be better. Granted, I have not really looked at prior schedules, but it can make little sense to do something like send USU to SDSU for a game only to travel to Wyoming two days later.

nvspuds · Post by **nvspuds** » May 21st, 2020, 1:33 pm

That has been my complaint too. The conference is spread out so anything that prevents this is good.

Upcoming Events

Event Results

20 game schedule.

Re: 20 game schedule.

Re: 20 game schedule.

Re: 20 game schedule.

Re: 20 game schedule.

Re: 20 game schedule.

Re: 20 game schedule.

Re: 20 game schedule.

Re: 20 game schedule.

Re: 20 game schedule.

Re: 20 game schedule.

Re: 20 game schedule.

Re: 20 game schedule.

Re: 20 game schedule.

Re: 20 game schedule.

Re: 20 game schedule.

Re: 20 game schedule.

Re: 20 game schedule.

Re: 20 game schedule.

Re: 20 game schedule.

Re: 20 game schedule.

Re: 20 game schedule.

Re: 20 game schedule.

Re: 20 game schedule.

Re: 20 game schedule.

Re: 20 game schedule.

Re: 20 game schedule.

Re: 20 game schedule.

Re: 20 game schedule.

Re: 20 game schedule.

Re: 20 game schedule.

Re: 20 game schedule.

Re: 20 game schedule.

Re: 20 game schedule.

Re: 20 game schedule.

Re: 20 game schedule.

USU Forums

MWC Forums

Upcoming/Past Opponents

Schedules

Upcoming Events

Event Results

Basketball

National Polls/Rankings

Stats

Football

National Polls/Rankings

Stats

Newspapers

Newsletters

Radio

Blogs

Podcasts

Websites

Donate