(02-02-2014 04:00 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(02-02-2014 03:42 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  I've heard rumors that UTEP just might be heading out to the mwc with byu(?) after this year.

I couldn't blame UTEP fans for wanting to move to the MWC if they could go in with BYU... conferencing with a program of BYU's stature would be good for UTEP.

I think UTEP to the Mtn. is plausible but unlikely for now. BYU is another story. They won't go back to the Mtn. unless they have NO other option. For now, it's more likely that FIU or FAU will join MWC than BYU will.

(02-02-2014 08:31 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(02-02-2014 04:00 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(02-02-2014 03:42 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  I've heard rumors that UTEP just might be heading out to the mwc with byu(?) after this year.

I couldn't blame UTEP fans for wanting to move to the MWC if they could go in with BYU... conferencing with a program of BYU's stature would be good for UTEP.

I think UTEP to the Mtn. is plausible but unlikely for now. BYU is another story. They won't go back to the Mtn. unless they have NO other option. For now, it's more likely that FIU or FAU will join MWC than BYU will.

I agree. I don't think anyone will be moving anywhere anytime soon. I believe we will have at least 7 years of stability, if not more.

I think UTEP to the Mtn. is plausible but unlikely for now. BYU is another story. They won't go back to the Mtn. unless they have NO other option. For now, it's more likely that FIU or FAU will join MWC than BYU will.
[/quote]


The only thing that would persuade bywho would be that it would help them get that bcs bid to a major bowl much easier. That's all.

i don't see UTSA going to the MWC. UTSA turned down a MWC invite last year. I really like CUSA, but i would love for UTSA to be in the AAC.

Is BYU eligible for the access bowl as an independent?

(02-02-2014 10:55 PM)Niner National Wrote:  Is BYU eligible for the access bowl as an independent?

They are eligible for an "at large" spot, but they are not eligible for the guaranteed G5 slot. That can only go to a G5 conference champion.

I think byu and utep would be a natural fit to add (back) to the mwc. They have quite the history with some oftthose schools, like others have pointed out.

Utsa, nt and rice should continue to grow rivalries. If I was a fan of those schools I wouldn't necessarily want to leave.

(02-02-2014 03:29 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  Fans of North Texas, Rice, UTEP, and UTSA, would you rather the 4 of us stay together in C-USA or leave by yourself to the AAC or MWC? Would you leave if you could take a partner? If so, who would it be? Fans of the AAC act like all of us want our team in the AAC. I just wanted to get an understanding of where y'all stand.

I don't care what conference it's in, but I want to be in a conference with SMU and UH again. We have so much history with those schools and it's incredibly sad to watch it go away. The Bayou Bucket and the Mayor's Cup just mean more to me as a fan than whether we beat UNT or UTSA, because of the shared history. Nothing against your schools, but I'd much rather we kept with our historic rivals who have moved to the AAC.

Now MWC? Meh. Not much history there, and travel would be a pain in the butt.

My preference would be to go to the MWC with UTSA. Won't happen, but that would be ideal for UTEP. Otherwise, CUSA is just fine.

(02-02-2014 11:59 PM)MondoMiner Wrote:  My preference would be to go to the MWC with UTSA. Won't happen, but that would be ideal for UTEP.

Since the Mtn. has had a lot of turnover in recent years, it's worth reviewing the current lineup:

Air Force
Boise State
Colorado State
Fresno State
Hawaii (football only)
Nevada
Nevada/Las Vegas
New Mexico
San Diego State
San Jose State
Utah State
Wyoming

That is just not (IMHO) a stronger line-up than C-USA.

You should ask this question again next Feb after we see what type of exposure the AAC has on ESPN next year. If the AAC has the type of a National footprint Aresco has been preaching, then it could be very hard to turn down an AAC spot if it was offered. At this point National exposure for the G5 is the holy grail imo.

(02-03-2014 01:49 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(02-02-2014 11:59 PM)MondoMiner Wrote:  My preference would be to go to the MWC with UTSA. Won't happen, but that would be ideal for UTEP.

Since the Mtn. has had a lot of turnover in recent years, it's worth reviewing the current lineup:

Air Force
Boise State
Colorado State
Fresno State
Hawaii (football only)
Nevada
Nevada/Las Vegas
New Mexico
San Diego State
San Jose State
Utah State
Wyoming

That is just not (IMHO) a stronger line-up than C-USA.

No, the MWC is a stronger conference right now. At the present time, I'd rank the G-5 in this order: AAC, MWC, MAC, CUSA, SBC. That will change from year to year as I look for more parity to develop within the G-5 conferences in the future. With the huge money divide between the P-5 and the G-5 getting ever bigger, we won't remain as competitive with the P-5 as we have been, especially with the upper echelon P-5 programs. Rarely will a G-5 team again threaten to crash the P-5's post season party. Our entire G-5 "division" will be a lot weaker for all the changes.

WTF??!?

I finally understand what BCS, FBS, and FCS stands for. Now we have P-5 and G-5! What do they stand for, and who comes up with this sh!t?

(02-03-2014 08:32 AM)Green Menace Wrote:  I finally understand what BCS, FBS, and FCS stands for. Now we have P-5 and G-5! What do they stand for, and who comes up with this sh!t?

"Power Five" and "Group of Five".

These labels originate within the media.

First of all, I like being in C-USA with the other Texas schools and having LT and USM in the west. Probably UAB in the west too but if we don't have divisions for basketball, that will make no difference.

A variety of rumors that I've heard and you probably have too:

Rice and UTEP visited and evaluated (Tulsa too) by the MWC back when they thought they were losing BSU and SDSU. Still lingering is the idea that if new ncaa rules change enough, 2 to 4 Texas schools will be recruited by the MWC. The rule changes to accomodate that would be loosening the conference champ game structure to allow semi-final games before the champ game. Gives conference another shot at making some additional income via semi-finals and tv.

BYU returning to MWC due to lack of G5 bowl access. Partner in this talk would be UTEP. Not likely but possible.

Lastly, there is talk of several MWC schools wanting a change in the distributiuon of money. Right now the more successful football schools take the lion's share of the tv money. This is based on the re-working of tv contract to lure Boise St back. The 4 schools in the east; AFA, UNM, CSU, WYO, join the Texas 4 and a couple of others in a new effort. This is mostly fan BS I think.

(02-03-2014 05:05 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  You should ask this question again next Feb after we see what type of exposure the AAC has on ESPN next year. If the AAC has the type of a National footprint Aresco has been preaching, then it could be very hard to turn down an AAC spot if it was offered. At this point National exposure for the G5 is the holy grail imo.

Yep. If ESPN is putting a lot of games on ESPN, ESPN 2, and ESPN U, then the AAC is in a really great spot. If the ESPN coverage is mostly ESPN3 and ESPNNews, it's still not terrible, but probably not any better than being on the Fox Sports, CBS, or NBC channels.

(02-03-2014 01:49 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(02-02-2014 11:59 PM)MondoMiner Wrote:  My preference would be to go to the MWC with UTSA. Won't happen, but that would be ideal for UTEP.

Since the Mtn. has had a lot of turnover in recent years, it's worth reviewing the current lineup:

Air Force
Boise State
Colorado State
Fresno State
Hawaii (football only)
Nevada
Nevada/Las Vegas
New Mexico
San Diego State
San Jose State
Utah State
Wyoming

That is just not (IMHO) a stronger line-up than C-USA.

For football, probably not, especially with Boise seemingly ending their run of national level success.

It is way better for basketball though. UNLV, UNM, and SDSU are all great programs. Utah State often has some decent teams, and usually at least one of those other teams is pretty competitive.

If they can get BYU back in the mix, that is a really stout basketball conference.

(02-03-2014 10:13 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(02-03-2014 01:49 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(02-02-2014 11:59 PM)MondoMiner Wrote:  My preference would be to go to the MWC with UTSA. Won't happen, but that would be ideal for UTEP.

Since the Mtn. has had a lot of turnover in recent years, it's worth reviewing the current lineup:

Air Force
Boise State
Colorado State
Fresno State
Hawaii (football only)
Nevada
Nevada/Las Vegas
New Mexico
San Diego State
San Jose State
Utah State
Wyoming

That is just not (IMHO) a stronger line-up than C-USA.

For football, probably not, especially with Boise seemingly ending their run of national level success.

It is way better for basketball though. UNLV, UNM, and SDSU are all great programs. Utah State often has some decent teams, and usually at least one of those other teams is pretty competitive.

If they can get BYU back in the mix, that is a really stout basketball conference.

True but I also think that basketball is one sport that C-USA can be much improved in very soon. USM, LT, UTEP are getting close (within a year or 2) of being ranked. Charlotte, ODU, MT, WKU, UAB can all be there in a hurry too. I think it's just a matter of time, and not all that much time, for C-USA to become a 3 bid conference on a regular basis. It's on the way.

(02-02-2014 11:43 PM)Klobasnek Wrote:  

(02-02-2014 03:29 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  Fans of North Texas, Rice, UTEP, and UTSA, would you rather the 4 of us stay together in C-USA or leave by yourself to the AAC or MWC? Would you leave if you could take a partner? If so, who would it be? Fans of the AAC act like all of us want our team in the AAC. I just wanted to get an understanding of where y'all stand.

I don't care what conference it's in, but I want to be in a conference with SMU and UH again. We have so much history with those schools and it's incredibly sad to watch it go away. The Bayou Bucket and the Mayor's Cup just mean more to me as a fan than whether we beat UNT or UTSA, because of the shared history. Nothing against your schools, but I'd much rather we kept with our historic rivals who have moved to the AAC.

Now MWC? Meh. Not much history there, and travel would be a pain in the butt.

Basically my thoughts as well. We've built some recent history with UTEP, and they've been a solid conference mate, but as for the others, we have no history with them. We've been playing SMU for 100 years and Rice and UH are the two closest D1 schools to each other. Those are the Texas schools I want Rice to be in a conference with, if we can't be in a conference with Texas or ATM anymore.

But things being what they are, I think this is a solid conference with lots of potential. We won't have MAC-like stability here no matter what happens, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. If we're in C-USA, I won't be upset, but college football is all about tradition.

(02-03-2014 01:49 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(02-02-2014 11:59 PM)MondoMiner Wrote:  My preference would be to go to the MWC with UTSA. Won't happen, but that would be ideal for UTEP.

Since the Mtn. has had a lot of turnover in recent years, it's worth reviewing the current lineup:

Air Force
Boise State
Colorado State
Fresno State
Hawaii (football only)
Nevada
Nevada/Las Vegas
New Mexico
San Diego State
San Jose State
Utah State
Wyoming

That is just not (IMHO) a stronger line-up than C-USA.

It's not so much about which lineup is stronger. I'm in my 40's, and have been a fan since I was in the 6th grade. I remember amazing battles vs. most of those schools. I may be wrong, but I think the majority of those schools would garner more fan interest than most of our current conference mates. I'm sure we could develop rivalries over time, but as soon as we start, half the conference leaves again. At least in the MWC, those rivalries have history and could be easily rekindled, IMO.