Exit fees/buyout fees aren't the issue. Houston (and everyone else) is better off clustering with more schools like SDSU and Cincinatti and fewer schools like SJSU and Rice.

UH needs the "national" cache of the schools east of the Mississippi regardless of what you think . . . and the BB option carries serious consequences for the long-term identity of UH sports. . . the MWC is NOT a good option unless all heck breaks loose in realignment . . .

If the MWC can land BSU, SDSU, UH, SMU then perhaps they can pull UTEP as well so that UH, SMU, UTEP and New Mexico can pod up in their own division.

If BYU would then sign on, I think the MWC could land itself a pretty decent contract.

Original CUSA had it right, who'd a thunk it

(11-19-2012 06:28 PM)UHCougar Wrote:  UH needs the "national" cache of the schools east of the Mississippi regardless of what you think . . . and the BB option carries serious consequences for the long-term identity of UH sports. . . the MWC is NOT a good option unless all heck breaks loose in realignment . . .

Uh.....all hell HAS broken loose starting today.

Just see how many networks come running without the NYC and Hartford/New England markets (When UCONN goes to the ACC).

(11-19-2012 07:03 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  If the MWC can land BSU, SDSU, UH, SMU then perhaps they can pull UTEP as well so that UH, SMU, UTEP and New Mexico can pod up in their own division.

If BYU would then sign on, I think the MWC could land itself a pretty decent contract.

Actually they won't get that decent of a contract. BYU will still have their own network which will devalue their presence, and Houston and Dallas markets would add 2 markets but not make up for all of the small market cities. That is why they didn't get a good deal before.

You guys seem to overlook the fact that performance on the field has nothing to do with realignment and it has everything to do with markets.

Only the old established conferences with an established brand (Big 12, B1G, SEC, ACC and PAC 12) can get a deal without big city markets.

(11-19-2012 07:37 PM)PaulDel2 Wrote:  

(11-19-2012 07:03 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  If the MWC can land BSU, SDSU, UH, SMU then perhaps they can pull UTEP as well so that UH, SMU, UTEP and New Mexico can pod up in their own division.

If BYU would then sign on, I think the MWC could land itself a pretty decent contract.

Actually they won't get that decent of a contract. BYU will still have their own network which will devalue their presence, and Houston and Dallas markets would add 2 markets but not make up for all of the small market cities. That is why they didn't get a good deal before.

You guys seem to overlook the fact that performance on the field has nothing to do with realignment and it has everything to do with markets.

Only the old established conferences with an established brand (Big 12, B1G, SEC, ACC and PAC 12) can get a deal without big city markets.

Yes. This is the problem with the MW contract, despite having a great on field product, there are simply not enough people to attrract big TV dollars. For Boise, BYU, SDSU, Fresno, Houston, SMU, and UNLV--cooler heads need to prevail. The Big East needs to give all those teams full all-sports memberships. Then the western wing makes sense and becomes stable from a financial standpoint and an athletic standpoint. At that point, the Big East would be the dominate national college basketball league and it would be the most likley conference to win the non-AQ BCS slot every year. Thats the best out come for those 7 teams. These 7 teams need the eastern populations to generae a good paycheck. The eastern teams need these quality schools to build a nationwide quality product. This needs to happen. Full memberships...pronto.

Houston isn't going to the MWC.

(11-19-2012 07:41 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-19-2012 07:37 PM)PaulDel2 Wrote:  

(11-19-2012 07:03 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  If the MWC can land BSU, SDSU, UH, SMU then perhaps they can pull UTEP as well so that UH, SMU, UTEP and New Mexico can pod up in their own division.

If BYU would then sign on, I think the MWC could land itself a pretty decent contract.

Actually they won't get that decent of a contract. BYU will still have their own network which will devalue their presence, and Houston and Dallas markets would add 2 markets but not make up for all of the small market cities. That is why they didn't get a good deal before.

You guys seem to overlook the fact that performance on the field has nothing to do with realignment and it has everything to do with markets.

Only the old established conferences with an established brand (Big 12, B1G, SEC, ACC and PAC 12) can get a deal without big city markets.

Yes. This is the problem with the MW contract, despite having a great on field product, there are simply not enough people to attrract big TV dollars. For Boise, BYU, SDSU, Fresno, Houston, SMU, and UNLV--cooler heads need to prevail. The Big East needs to give all those teams full all-sports memberships. Then the western wing makes sense and becomes stable from a financial standpoint and an athletic standpoint. At that point, the Big East would be the dominate national college basketball league and it would be the most likley conference to win the non-AQ BCS slot every year. Thats the best out come for those 7 teams. These 7 teams need the eastern populations to generae a good paycheck. The eastern teams need these quality schools to build a nationwide quality product. This needs to happen. Full memberships...pronto.

You have the bball schools problem, they don't want anymore all sports, and sure as hell not ones in the west. The fb schools need to break away and make it an all sports conf. either w/ western schools or CUSA schools.

(11-19-2012 07:46 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Houston isn't going to the MWC.

As long as Georgetown and Villanova are staying, there is no way UH or SMU back out. SDSU and Boise-maybe so.

UCF, Memphis, SMU all have the same clause in their contracts, too. Only difference is some fan posted Houston's page online.