Dodd didn't offer anything compelling in his suggestion that BYU go to the MWC - just the usual travel and "like minded schools" (not sure the latter is accurate, though).

(05-17-2014 11:08 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  AAC and MWC should merge!

The MW and the AAC are in a death struggle. One will win and survive, the other will lose and disappear. Seriously, there is not room for both of them. One must vanquish the other.

(Of course its possible, maybe even likely both will perish along the way...that can happen as well.)

But "merger"? Sorry, I can't see that happening until/unless both are at death's door-step or one has bludgeoned the other into submission.

Fortunately, for the American, if there is one surviving conference that has been run with greater incompetence than the BE-AAC, it would be the MW. They have whiffed and mis-stepped so badly over the years that they have squandered the chance to be a legitimate "power" conference whereas the BE-American was more the victim of predatory neighbors.

(Though I will also admit that the Sunbelt's commissioner, Karl Benson, is about a big a dolt as you can find...a bigger dolt than even "Meatball" Marinatto. But as long as Benson is running a competitor, I feel OK...)

(05-17-2014 10:43 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 10:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The MWC, in terms of culture, geography, and competition level, is the obvious home for BYU should it join a conference.

Some truth in that, but it omits the fact that culture, geography, and competitive level are (alas) incidental to most conference-alignment decisions nowadays.

Does the AAC want BYU to join? If we knew they would accept an equal-terms (no special deal) invite, would we extend one?

(05-17-2014 11:58 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 09:49 AM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 09:45 AM)Bleeds_Purple Wrote:  I think we should force the hand of the power 5 to make it a power 6. If we can get BYU to say yes Boise State Fresno State and San Diego State will follow we would be a 16 team best of the rest from coast to coast killing the MWC there would be no bones about we would be way better than the G4 leagues.

iF BYU decides to join for football only I think Aresco would target Air Force as #14

I have to chuckle somewhat that many of you talk of the BYU-MW bridges as being "burned" and "dynamited" but then think that the AAC-AFA bridges are somehow still there...

IF BYU "dynamited" it's bridge to the MW, THEN what do you call what the Air Force Academy did in it's talks with the nascent American Conference last year??? I mean seriously here... They blew up that bridge more spectacularly than BYU ever did with the MW. And then their extremely loud proclamation that the AFA would never leave their main rivals on the Front Range of the Rockies (Colorado State, New Mexico, and Wyoming) sounded pretty definitive to me.

Wow. Often your points are well reasoned and based in fact. Same for Quo. Of late, both you and Quo have become increasingly shrill and unreasonable with the whole sky is falling act. Every post reaches for the most negative slant on every event, no matter how far fetched.

This is an excellent example. BYU is Founding member of the MW. They have been historically linked to the MW teams for decades due to a long history in the west and a significant period of time together in the WAC prior to the MW breakaway. BYU leaving the MW was a gut punch. It's was a stab in the back by a long time traditional associate.

Air Force has zero history with the teams of the AAC. Other than Navy, Air Force has no long time ties with any AAC school. Air Force is not geographically connected in any way to the AAC and had never done anything other than engage in talks to consider membership. The truth is---membership the AAC would have meant turning its back on most of its longtime sports relationships.

Saying that the Air Force rejection of the AAC is identical to the BYU withdrawal from the MW is a ridiculous reach. Really, the AAC has plenty of faults and weak spots to target. You and Quo are trying way way too hard. No need to manufacture such far fetched reaches as this. Just pound away at the sad bowl line up, the G5 status, and the pathetic paycheck. There is plenty of sky is falling material to mine in those very real weak area.

(05-17-2014 11:16 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 11:00 AM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  If BYU had to join a conference, why wouldn't they make a push for the Big 12? I'm not saying the Big 12 would take them, but I think they would definitely make it a priority over the American or MWC.

They can use the AAC as a stepping stone while simultaneously pursuing the Big 12.

It wouldn't make sense to join the American (pay AAC entry fees) only to turn around and join the Big 12 (pay AAC exit fees, Big 12 entry fees) a year or two down the line. The only way I see BYU joining the AAC or MWC is if BYU thinks Big 12 membership isn't going to happen anytime soon (e.g. 5 or more years off in the future). Even then, the cougars might want special concessions (i.e. keep their current TV deal similar to how Navy kept theirs) in order to join.

(05-17-2014 12:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 10:43 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 10:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The MWC, in terms of culture, geography, and competition level, is the obvious home for BYU should it join a conference.

Some truth in that, but it omits the fact that culture, geography, and competitive level are (alas) incidental to most conference-alignment decisions nowadays.

Does the AAC want BYU to join? If we knew they would accept an equal-terms (no special deal) invite, would we extend one?

yes and obviously , and yes and obviously ..we'd even invite them and let them have a special tv deal with byutv (if the revenue was split), navy is likely to get one aswell

(05-17-2014 11:00 AM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  If BYU had to join a conference, why wouldn't they make a push for the Big 12? I'm not saying the Big 12 would take them, but I think they would definitely make it a priority over the American or MWC.

I agree... I think BYU should push they're way into the B12... Here's the problem though, BYU already did and overestimated Texas=The B12 with their demands.

I'm not sure what BYU's demands were, but I can assure you, Texas=TheB12 was not happy and BYU with Texas=TheB12 unpleasant feedbacks.

(05-17-2014 11:08 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  AAC and MWC should merge!

To much fat in the MWC

(05-17-2014 12:27 PM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 11:16 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 11:00 AM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  If BYU had to join a conference, why wouldn't they make a push for the Big 12? I'm not saying the Big 12 would take them, but I think they would definitely make it a priority over the American or MWC.

They can use the AAC as a stepping stone while simultaneously pursuing the Big 12.

It wouldn't make sense to join the American (pay AAC entry fees) only to turn around and join the Big 12 (pay AAC exit fees, Big 12 entry fees) a year or two down the line. The only way I see BYU joining the AAC or MWC is if BYU thinks Big 12 membership isn't going to happen anytime soon (e.g. 5 or more years off in the future). Even then, the cougars might want special concessions (i.e. keep their current TV deal similar to how Navy kept theirs) in order to join.

Unless the Big12 made promises not publicly available, BYU is compiled to join a G5 conference soon. They cannot afford to wait on an uncertain suitor. Also, I do not think fees will deter BYU from seeking Big12 membership because BYU appears to have deep pockets and the long term benefits of P5 status far exceed the short term cost.

(05-17-2014 12:27 PM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 11:16 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 11:00 AM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  If BYU had to join a conference, why wouldn't they make a push for the Big 12? I'm not saying the Big 12 would take them, but I think they would definitely make it a priority over the American or MWC.

They can use the AAC as a stepping stone while simultaneously pursuing the Big 12.

It wouldn't make sense to join the American (pay AAC entry fees) only to turn around and join the Big 12 (pay AAC exit fees, Big 12 entry fees) a year or two down the line. The only way I see BYU joining the AAC or MWC is if BYU thinks Big 12 membership isn't going to happen anytime soon (e.g. 5 or more years off in the future). Even then, the cougars might want special concessions (i.e. keep their current TV deal similar to how Navy kept theirs) in order to join.

I think it would make great sense. If you get a B12 invite you happily pay MWC or AAC exit fees and be gone, no matter how recently you joined them.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(05-17-2014 01:07 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 12:27 PM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 11:16 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 11:00 AM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  If BYU had to join a conference, why wouldn't they make a push for the Big 12? I'm not saying the Big 12 would take them, but I think they would definitely make it a priority over the American or MWC.

They can use the AAC as a stepping stone while simultaneously pursuing the Big 12.

It wouldn't make sense to join the American (pay AAC entry fees) only to turn around and join the Big 12 (pay AAC exit fees, Big 12 entry fees) a year or two down the line. The only way I see BYU joining the AAC or MWC is if BYU thinks Big 12 membership isn't going to happen anytime soon (e.g. 5 or more years off in the future). Even then, the cougars might want special concessions (i.e. keep their current TV deal similar to how Navy kept theirs) in order to join.

Unless the Big12 made promises not publicly available, BYU is compiled to join a G5 conference soon. They cannot afford to wait on an uncertain suitor. Also, I do not think fees will deter BYU from seeking Big12 membership because BYU appears to have deep pockets and the long term benefits of P5 status far exceed the short term cost.

Yup. Money isn't an issue. BYU will just pay the exit fee and move on to a P5 perch when/if an invite comes to their doorstep.

(05-17-2014 12:44 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  I'm not sure what BYU's demands were, but I can assure you, Texas=TheB12 was not happy and BYU with Texas=TheB12 unpleasant feedbacks.

From what I read, it was a combination of things. ABC/ESPN and Fox Sports didn't like the "no play on Sunday" policy (not for football as much as any other sports the networks might want to televise). BYU wanted assurances that an unspecified minimum of the school's games would be televised nationally and it also wanted the ability to show live BYU games that weren't picked up by Fox or ESPN on BYUtv. I also believe (though I could be wrong) that BYU wanted to retain rebroadcast right to all BYU games.

All of those things combined with a belief that BYU could make independence work is what put the nix on Big 12 membership the first time around. It will be interesting to see if independence has humbled them or if of the LDS church leader think independence is best regardless of what it does to the program.

(05-17-2014 10:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 12:52 AM)Big Sierra Wrote:  That is the best way for BYU to gain access.

The MWC, in terms of culture, geography, and competition level, is the obvious home for BYU should it decide that it wants its football to die off into oblivion.

The MWC can not generate the revenue required to lure a BYU. And someone has already done some preliminary math, the AAC is still a stronger conference even if the MWC took in BYU.

(05-17-2014 01:30 PM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 12:44 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  I'm not sure what BYU's demands were, but I can assure you, Texas=TheB12 was not happy and BYU with Texas=TheB12 unpleasant feedbacks.

From what I read, it was a combination of things. ABC/ESPN and Fox Sports didn't like the "no play on Sunday" policy (not for football as much as any other sports the networks might want to televise). BYU wanted assurances that an unspecified minimum of the school's games would be televised nationally and it also wanted the ability to show live BYU games that weren't picked up by Fox or ESPN on BYUtv. I also believe (though I could be wrong) that BYU wanted to retain rebroadcast right to all BYU games.

All of those things combined with a belief that BYU could make independence work is what put the nix on Big 12 membership the first time around. It will be interesting to see if independence has humbled them or if of the LDS church leader think independence is best regardless of what it does to the program.

The last line is the key. The LDS leadership is a huge wildcard here. They have a different goal than every other FBS school's administration when it's comes to athletics, TV, and conference affiliation. The metrics used by other school presidents are not on play. Personally, I think if Holmoe and Bronco had thier way, BYU would have been in either the Big-12 or AAC by now. I'm certain the AAC could have accommodated most of thier TV needs---not sure the Big-12 has much interest in doing that.

(05-17-2014 01:36 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 10:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 12:52 AM)Big Sierra Wrote:  That is the best way for BYU to gain access.

The MWC, in terms of culture, geography, and competition level, is the obvious home for BYU should it decide that it wants its football to die off into oblivion.

The MWC can not generate the revenue required to lure a BYU. And someone has already done some preliminary math, the AAC is still a stronger conference even if the MWC took in BYU.

LOL. Can I have what you're smoking?

(05-17-2014 01:07 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  Unless the Big12 made promises not publicly available, BYU is compelled to join a G5 conference soon. They cannot afford to wait on an uncertain suitor.

Why will BYU be compelled to do anything?

#1. The ACC / SEC said games against BYU do not count for satisfying the "must play one P5 school OOC" rule. ACC and SEC schools can still schedule BYU to home-and-home series if they want (just like any other G5 school), it just won't count towards the P5 requirement.

#2. Since 2000, BYU has played a grand total of 11 games against the ACC and 3 games against the SEC. If you look at 2010 to present, those numbers drop to 4 games against the ACC and 1 game against the SEC. It isn't like BYU was regularly playing either conference anyway so I'm not sure if the recent announcement hurts the Cougars as much as people think. It also doesn't matter if the Big 10 follows the ACC/SEC decisions at all. The Big 10 has only played BYU once since 2000 and only twice ever during the regular season. The only P5 conference that matters is the PAC 12 (23 games against BYU since 2000). If they stop scheduling BYU, then the Cougars are in trouble.

#3. BYU is run by the LDS church. That means they won't necessarily behave like other schools would in the same situation. Church leaders might see independence as a better path than conference affiliation because it allows them to play games on BYUTV and spread the church's message. It might severely hurt the athletics department in the process, but athletic success might be seen as less important than the LDS religious mission.

(05-17-2014 01:48 PM)UNLVFan90 Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 01:36 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 10:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 12:52 AM)Big Sierra Wrote:  That is the best way for BYU to gain access.

The MWC, in terms of culture, geography, and competition level, is the obvious home for BYU should it decide that it wants its football to die off into oblivion.

The MWC can not generate the revenue required to lure a BYU. And someone has already done some preliminary math, the AAC is still a stronger conference even if the MWC took in BYU.

LOL. Can I have what you're smoking?

80% of the mwc would still have crappy attendance, 80% still cant recruit

basketball changes nothing as byuisnt that high profile a team, we still be clear cut the better bball league

adding byu doesnt make the mwc "bad" go away, it increases their profile and makes the argument of the aac vs mwc more legit than it is now (in which the AAC is better than the mwc in every measurable status, attendance, recruiting, funding, funding, market, academic, average team final ranking etc. as is)

whatever he is smoking is obviously making things clearer, you obviously need a hit

(05-17-2014 01:48 PM)UNLVFan90 Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 01:36 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 10:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 12:52 AM)Big Sierra Wrote:  That is the best way for BYU to gain access.

The MWC, in terms of culture, geography, and competition level, is the obvious home for BYU should it decide that it wants its football to die off into oblivion.

The MWC can not generate the revenue required to lure a BYU. And someone has already done some preliminary math, the AAC is still a stronger conference even if the MWC took in BYU.

LOL. Can I have what you're smoking?

You know Thompson isn't like Jesus with the loaves and fishes. He only has a 19 million dollar contract to work with and Boise already gets 3-3.5 million of that. I guess the rest of the MW teams could all pony up 500K each and give it to BYU. That would allow BYU to break even in the MW with a 6 million dollar paycheck. Will Boise do that? Hell, how many MW votes will that get I wonder.

(05-17-2014 01:54 PM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 01:07 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  Unless the Big12 made promises not publicly available, BYU is compelled to join a G5 conference soon. They cannot afford to wait on an uncertain suitor.

Why will BYU be compelled to do anything?

#1. The ACC / SEC said games against BYU do not count for satisfying the "must play one P5 school OOC" rule. ACC and SEC schools can still schedule BYU to home-and-home series if they want (just like any other G5 school), it just won't count towards the P5 requirement.

#2. Since 2000, BYU has played a grand total of 11 games against the ACC and 3 games against the SEC. If you look at 2010 to present, those numbers drop to 4 games against the ACC and 1 game against the SEC. It isn't like BYU was regularly playing either conference anyway so I'm not sure if the recent announcement hurts the Cougars as much as people think. It also doesn't matter if the Big 10 follows the ACC/SEC decisions at all. The Big 10 has only played BYU once since 2000 and only twice ever during the regular season. The only P5 conference that matters is the PAC 12 (23 games against BYU since 2000). If they stop scheduling BYU, then the Cougars are in trouble.

#3. BYU is run by the LDS church. That means they won't necessarily behave like other schools would in the same situation. Church leaders might see independence as a better path than conference affiliation because it allows them to play games on BYUTV and spread the church's message. It might severely hurt the athletics department in the process, but athletic success might be seen as less important than the LDS religious mission.

Your first two points are irrelevant. Sechduling prior to 2011 doesn't mean anything when 8 of BYU's games were tied up as conference games. Plus, changes in the last year are making the scheduling landscape different. Its not just that the ACC and SEC don't consider BYU a P5 game. Its that the Pac-12, Big-12, and Big-10 have all moved to 9 game schedules. Its that the ACC and SEC may as well have moved to a 9 game schedule because there is now one less OOC slot for all AAC and SEC schools (the P5 required OOC slot) that BYU cannot occupy. In essence, the universe of possible P5 scheduling dates has been reduced by 25% since BYU decided to go independent. Not to mention one major independent has joined a confernece--removing 12 more viable scheduling dates and Notre Dame has entered a scheduling alliance---eliminating 5 more possible P5 scheduling dates.

Add to the restricted universe of scheduling opportunities, recent changes in the playoff/major bowl structure that makes it more difficult for BYU to land a major bowl than it is for Utah State---and there is ample reason for BYU to reconsider conference affiliation---even G5 conference affiliation.

That said, your point #3 still will carry the day. The LDS is unpredictable. New Years Day Bowls and games against the P5 may be less valuable to them than full ownership of all sports media rights for church exposure purposes. If that's the case, look for them to aggressively pursue a Notre Dame style relationship with either the Big-12 (long shot) or a G5 (MW or AAC).

(05-17-2014 12:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 11:58 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 09:49 AM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 09:45 AM)Bleeds_Purple Wrote:  I think we should force the hand of the power 5 to make it a power 6. If we can get BYU to say yes Boise State Fresno State and San Diego State will follow we would be a 16 team best of the rest from coast to coast killing the MWC there would be no bones about we would be way better than the G4 leagues.

iF BYU decides to join for football only I think Aresco would target Air Force as #14

I have to chuckle somewhat that many of you talk of the BYU-MW bridges as being "burned" and "dynamited" but then think that the AAC-AFA bridges are somehow still there...

IF BYU "dynamited" it's bridge to the MW, THEN what do you call what the Air Force Academy did in it's talks with the nascent American Conference last year??? I mean seriously here... They blew up that bridge more spectacularly than BYU ever did with the MW. And then their extremely loud proclamation that the AFA would never leave their main rivals on the Front Range of the Rockies (Colorado State, New Mexico, and Wyoming) sounded pretty definitive to me.

Wow. Often your points are well reasoned and based in fact. Same for Quo. Of late, both you and Quo have become increasingly shrill and unreasonable with the whole sky is falling act. Every post reaches for the most negative slant on every event, no matter how far fetched.

This is an excellent example. BYU is Founding member of the MW. They have been historically linked to the MW teams for decades due to a long history in the west and a significant period of time together in the WAC prior to the MW breakaway. BYU leaving the MW was a gut punch. It's was a stab in the back by a long time traditional associate.

Air Force has zero history with the teams of the AAC. Other than Navy, Air Force has no long time ties with any AAC school. Air Force is not geographically connected in any way to the AAC and had never done anything other than engage in talks to consider membership. The truth is---membership the AAC would have meant turning its back on most of its longtime sports relationships.

Saying that the Air Force rejection of the AAC is identical to the BYU withdrawal from the MW is a ridiculous reach. Really, the AAC has plenty of faults and weak spots to target. You and Quo are trying way way too hard. No need to manufacture such far fetched reaches as this. Just pound away at the sad bowl line up, the G5 status, and the pathetic paycheck. There is plenty of sky is falling material to mine in those very real weak area.

Shrill? "Sky is falling?" LOL!

My point was merely that the Air Force Academy defined themselves as a member of the MW and decisively cut-off the overtures that they were interested in joining the AAC. Is that shrill? Does that somehow indicate that "Woe is us! The sky is falling!" All it indicates to me is that the AFA isn't going to suddenly be jumping into the AAC. That's not a terrible thing at all. It is what it is.

You know, people keep asking "What four teams would you add?" which is fine, except it leaves out one crucial question---> Would those teams come? The only team that seems to have an inclination to come over to the AAC was San Diego State, and that was based upon adding another couple of teams West of the Rockies. Now ***MAYBE*** BYU has some incentive (the case can be made for the idea that incentive is building, granted) for joining. But as for AFA, they have indicated "NO" (though that can change), Colorado State is a founding member (and driving force of) the MW and they have not expressed any interest, UNLV...MAYBE...and Fresno State, to my knowledge, has never really weighed in.

The sky isn't falling, but I think you also have to be somewhat realistic in your appraisal of the situation.