Assuming that the AAC cannot be raided, who's the 12th team in the Mountain West to replace San Diego State?
I'm not real convinced that Texas State would leave the SBC for the MWC given that the difference in TV dollars post-SDSU may not be significant.
I'd say they stand pat.
They're better off just getting more frequent occurrences of 1 vs 2 in the league in football and men's basketball and splitting TV revenues fewer ways than expanding to a lackluster program that either isn't in a big market, or has no real history of success.
I doubt it's realistic, but I'd like to see the MWC add Idaho or North Dakota State.
One option not listed, but could be a possibility: UC Davis.
Why? The Sacramento TV market (#20) is actually larger than the San Diego TV market (#30).
They'd no longer have L.A. (#2) next door, but Sacramento is still large enough to avoid a major drop in TV money. It's larger than Charlotte (#21), San Antonio (#31), West Palm Beach (#39, Miami is #18), and Birmingham (#45), who were all added to the AAC in 2021 because of their market.
My vote is UTEP.
Adding TXST by themselves makes little sense. If the MWC blew up their current model expecting CSU/AFA might also leave later they could add UTEP/TXST/SHSU/ & UTA to pair with Hawai'i FB but that'd be major overkill right now. That large of a presence in TX at the cost of 3 more FB share and then partial share for UTA would be unwise currently.
I also don't see NDSU moving without at least SDSU. You could add those 2 + UTEP I guess for 11 all sports / 14 in FB but I just don't know if that is likely. Same argument could be made with UM/MSU and UTEP but all 3 be made full members.
MWC probably doesnt think New Mexico State and UTEP bring them any value. Their candidates based on just geography, basically. Those 2 would love to be in the MWC but the MWC probably thinks they are too good for them.
(06-21-2023 04:15 PM)Yosef181 Wrote: [ -> ]I doubt it's realistic, but I'd like to see the MWC add Idaho or North Dakota State.
One option not listed, but could be a possibility: UC Davis.
Why? The Sacramento TV market (#20) is actually larger than the San Diego TV market (#30).
They'd no longer have L.A. (#2) next door, but Sacramento is still large enough to avoid a major drop in TV money. It's larger than Charlotte (#21), San Antonio (#31), West Palm Beach (#39, Miami is #18), and Birmingham (#45), who were all added to the AAC in 2021 because of their market.
Yosef,
I have been very respectful of you and acknowledge your strong understanding of the Sun Belt and college sports. I feel — and I note this sincerely — you bring various positives to this board (which I've been reading since 2011).
But your use of "because of their markets" theme — as if to suggest that is the only reason (or the main reason) the AAC added the schools that it did — has grown tiresome.
It is also disingenuous (and you know this).
UAB (for example) was added due to its shared-league history with various AAC members, its new football stadium, its very solid men's basketball program and its med school (among other factors).
The AAC sought well-rounded universities (athletics and academics) located in or near large cities and that are willing to spend $40 million or more annually on sports. With a few exceptions, there were only a handful of such universities available for the AAC to choose.
I wouldn't post this if I felt you were some random buffoon. But because I do respect you and appreciate your board presence, I wanted to note this.
Thanks,
Bill
Nobody. They'll make more money and have easier governance staying pat than adding UTEP, NMSU, Texas State, or any other single school that dilutes value.
(06-21-2023 05:01 PM)bill dazzle Wrote: [ -> ] (06-21-2023 04:15 PM)Yosef181 Wrote: [ -> ]I doubt it's realistic, but I'd like to see the MWC add Idaho or North Dakota State.
One option not listed, but could be a possibility: UC Davis.
Why? The Sacramento TV market (#20) is actually larger than the San Diego TV market (#30).
They'd no longer have L.A. (#2) next door, but Sacramento is still large enough to avoid a major drop in TV money. It's larger than Charlotte (#21), San Antonio (#31), West Palm Beach (#39, Miami is #18), and Birmingham (#45), who were all added to the AAC in 2021 because of their market.
Yosef,
I have been very respectful of you and acknowledge your strong understanding of the Sun Belt and college sports. I feel — and I note this sincerely — you bring various positives to this board (which I've been reading since 2011).
But your use of "because of their markets" theme — as if to suggest that is the only reason (or the main reason) the AAC added the schools that it did — has grown tiresome.
It is also disingenuous (and you know this).
UAB (for example) was added due to its shared-league history with various AAC members, its new football stadium, its very solid men's basketball program and its med school (among other factors).
The AAC sought well-rounded universities (athletics and academics) located in or near large cities and that are willing to spend $40 million or more annually on sports. With a few exceptions, there were only a handful of such universities available for the AAC to choose.
I wouldn't post this if I felt you were some random buffoon. But because I do respect you and appreciate your board presence, I wanted to note this.
Thanks,
Bill
Hey Bill, I'm being serious. If you look at the MWC forums on who they'd like to add, UC Davis is in 4th, only behind 'No One', UTEP, and 'Montana(s)'.
My "markets" point is valid. Since you brought up the AAC: being in a large market is a core part of the AAC's identity. Outside of ECU, every AAC member is in the top 61 TV markets. All 6 of their last 6 adds are in the top 45 TV markets. That's not circumstantial.
UNC-Charlotte didn't ascend from "no football program" to "AAC" in 10 years because of success. You said it yourself: "located in or near large cities".
The MWC is taking a huge hit by losing the San Diego market. That's a big deal to TV partners in the near-future, just like it's a big deal that the Pac-12 lost the Los Angeles market.
It's not disingenuous to state that TV markets still matter.
(06-21-2023 05:21 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote: [ -> ]Nobody. They'll make more money and have easier governance staying pat than adding UTEP, NMSU, Texas State, or any other single school that dilutes value.
I agree. I don’t see anyone that really helps. It gets them to ten for basketball, which makes scheduling easier. Softball will have eight and baseball will have six. Baseball is a concern if someone else leaves but it is ideal for scheduling as you can play everyone home/home. Men’s tennis is also down to six.
Women’s soccer will have eleven due to an affiliate.
It puts football at eleven due to Hawaii affiliate. It prevents a nine game schedule but they weren’t doing that anyway.
They will stand pat. The MWC will need to lose like 3 or 4 more schools before they make moves (like add UTEP plz).
(06-21-2023 05:55 PM)Yosef181 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-21-2023 05:01 PM)bill dazzle Wrote: [ -> ] (06-21-2023 04:15 PM)Yosef181 Wrote: [ -> ]I doubt it's realistic, but I'd like to see the MWC add Idaho or North Dakota State.
One option not listed, but could be a possibility: UC Davis.
Why? The Sacramento TV market (#20) is actually larger than the San Diego TV market (#30).
They'd no longer have L.A. (#2) next door, but Sacramento is still large enough to avoid a major drop in TV money. It's larger than Charlotte (#21), San Antonio (#31), West Palm Beach (#39, Miami is #18), and Birmingham (#45), who were all added to the AAC in 2021 because of their market.
Yosef,
I have been very respectful of you and acknowledge your strong understanding of the Sun Belt and college sports. I feel — and I note this sincerely — you bring various positives to this board (which I've been reading since 2011).
But your use of "because of their markets" theme — as if to suggest that is the only reason (or the main reason) the AAC added the schools that it did — has grown tiresome.
It is also disingenuous (and you know this).
UAB (for example) was added due to its shared-league history with various AAC members, its new football stadium, its very solid men's basketball program and its med school (among other factors).
The AAC sought well-rounded universities (athletics and academics) located in or near large cities and that are willing to spend $40 million or more annually on sports. With a few exceptions, there were only a handful of such universities available for the AAC to choose.
I wouldn't post this if I felt you were some random buffoon. But because I do respect you and appreciate your board presence, I wanted to note this.
Thanks,
Bill
Hey Bill, I'm being serious. If you look at the MWC forums on who they'd like to add, UC Davis is in 4th, only behind 'No One', UTEP, and 'Montana(s)'.
My "markets" point is valid. Since you brought up the AAC: being in a large market is a core part of the AAC's identity. Outside of ECU, every AAC member is in the top 61 TV markets. All 6 of their last 6 adds are in the top 45 TV markets. That's not circumstantial.
UNC-Charlotte didn't ascend from "no football program" to "AAC" in 10 years because of success. You said it yourself: "located in or near large cities".
The MWC is taking a huge hit by losing the San Diego market. That's a big deal to TV partners in the near-future, just like it's a big deal that the Pac-12 lost the Los Angeles market.
It's not disingenuous to state that TV markets still matter.
To be fair, maybe I misinterpreted your post, Yosef. I do agree that markets matter for the AAC. And perhaps even more than I realize. But it does seem you sometimes focus on that element without noting other considerations in your various posts about the AAC.
In the case of Charlotte, for example, UNCC has shared previous leagues with Temple (A10), Memphis (C-USA) and USF and UAB (Sun Belt). And that shared-league history offers some value, particularly regarding the building of rivalries.
On the Charlotte theme, I feel it is rather easy for any poster to contend, for example, the AAC should have taken App State over Charlotte if it wanted a second member located in North Carolina — because App State offers a rabid and robust football fan base, while UNCC does not. Though that is true, it overlooks other factors that made Charlotte attractive to the AAC (including the shared-league history I note, a rather solid 49ers men's basketball program and an R2 academic designation).
My apologies if I over-reacted.
They don’t have to add anybody now that divisions and a minimum of 12 schools are not required for a CCG.
(06-21-2023 05:55 PM)Yosef181 Wrote: [ -> ] (06-21-2023 05:01 PM)bill dazzle Wrote: [ -> ] (06-21-2023 04:15 PM)Yosef181 Wrote: [ -> ]I doubt it's realistic, but I'd like to see the MWC add Idaho or North Dakota State.
One option not listed, but could be a possibility: UC Davis.
Why? The Sacramento TV market (#20) is actually larger than the San Diego TV market (#30).
They'd no longer have L.A. (#2) next door, but Sacramento is still large enough to avoid a major drop in TV money. It's larger than Charlotte (#21), San Antonio (#31), West Palm Beach (#39, Miami is #18), and Birmingham (#45), who were all added to the AAC in 2021 because of their market.
Yosef,
I have been very respectful of you and acknowledge your strong understanding of the Sun Belt and college sports. I feel — and I note this sincerely — you bring various positives to this board (which I've been reading since 2011).
But your use of "because of their markets" theme — as if to suggest that is the only reason (or the main reason) the AAC added the schools that it did — has grown tiresome.
It is also disingenuous (and you know this).
UAB (for example) was added due to its shared-league history with various AAC members, its new football stadium, its very solid men's basketball program and its med school (among other factors).
The AAC sought well-rounded universities (athletics and academics) located in or near large cities and that are willing to spend $40 million or more annually on sports. With a few exceptions, there were only a handful of such universities available for the AAC to choose.
I wouldn't post this if I felt you were some random buffoon. But because I do respect you and appreciate your board presence, I wanted to note this.
Thanks,
Bill
Hey Bill, I'm being serious. If you look at the MWC forums on who they'd like to add, UC Davis is in 4th, only behind 'No One', UTEP, and 'Montana(s)'.
My "markets" point is valid. Since you brought up the AAC: being in a large market is a core part of the AAC's identity. Outside of ECU, every AAC member is in the top 61 TV markets. All 6 of their last 6 adds are in the top 45 TV markets. That's not circumstantial.
UNC-Charlotte didn't ascend from "no football program" to "AAC" in 10 years because of success. You said it yourself: "located in or near large cities".
The MWC is taking a huge hit by losing the San Diego market. That's a big deal to TV partners in the near-future, just like it's a big deal that the Pac-12 lost the Los Angeles market.
It's not disingenuous to state that TV markets still matter.
Your points are valid but I would guess the MWC would add SacState over UC Davis. The reasons are pretty simple in that UC Davis would add competition to move up further that was an AAU school. None of the MWC schools want that competition. If Fresno is still in the conference little love exists between the two schools as UCDavis has zero joint doctoral degrees with Fresno despite many opportunities to do so.
So your thinking is correct and Sac State should be in the poll.
(06-21-2023 05:21 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote: [ -> ]Nobody. They'll make more money and have easier governance staying pat than adding UTEP, NMSU, Texas State, or any other single school that dilutes value.
The MWC has made it perfectly clear they don’t want anything to do with UTEP since May 1998 (WAC-16 split announcement) and that won’t change anytime soon. We can debate all day if that’s fair or not but it’s just business and I’m perfectly fine to keep things that way. Schedule them in OOC as it’s been the case in the past and in the future.
(06-21-2023 06:10 PM)PredatorUTEP Wrote: [ -> ]They will stand pat. The MWC will need to lose like 3 or 4 more schools before they make moves (like add UTEP plz).
If that happens I hope UTEP turns down that invite.
Do you really want to go to a conference that’s about to die? To my knowledge, there’s no Western FCS schools making any signals they’d entertain the idea of moving up to FBS unless you consider North Dakota State “Western.”
Unlike C-USA, the MWC won’t be able to reload on regional FCS schools willing to move up to FBS. C-USA can lose two schools today and Tarleton State and Eastern Kentucky would get the call if you believe the reports they were told they’d be next in line when they made their presentation last year.
The Pac-12 or wherever is left of it will kill the MWC. There’ll only be one Western FBS conference left standing. I don’t want UTEP to be in the same situation Idaho and NMSU were when WAC football died ten years ago.