Interesting comments by the BYU AD. I'm not sure what, precisely, BYU's long-range objective is, but the simple fact is that all of the elite MBB conferences play their tournament championship games on Selection Sunday. There is no reason to believe that will change anytime soon. So if BYU will-not/cannot play on Sunday, then they are by definition excluding themselves from any consideration for membership by elite MBB conferences.

(08-19-2015 08:18 PM)Okielite Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 08:05 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 07:29 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 07:07 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 06:45 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  When they join the AAC, they wont have to worry about any of this.

Could BYU package deal with Colorado State to the AAC?

The MWC then offers UTEP, UTSA, Rice in an effort to get back into the Texas big. UTEP probably would not agree to it by themselves, IMO.

Think 20 schools, four divisions of five that are geographic in nature.

I'm not seeing that.

What I'm seeing is Boise would be comfortable returning to the Pacific division. In order to do that the MWC would have to pick up 2 Texas schools (or 3 Texas schools if Colorado State was to leave).

SMU I can't see heading to the MWC under any circumstances. The quality of the academic schools and the long term potential of the football conference should keep them in the AAC.

I hope you are joking. MW is much more stable of a conference and SMU does not have to look far to see a school who took MW success and turned it into a P-5 invite.

AAC programs aren't startups, and football level in the American is pretty darn good... I very much doubt SMU looks mwc direction.

The AAC dissolving is only way I see the Stangs leaving for another conference (mwc).

(08-19-2015 08:41 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Interesting comments by the BYU AD. I'm not sure what, precisely, BYU's long-range objective is, but the simple fact is that all of the elite MBB conferences play their tournament championship games on Selection Sunday. There is no reason to believe that will change anytime soon. So if BYU will-not/cannot play on Sunday, then they are by definition excluding themselves from any consideration for membership by elite MBB conferences.

that comment is so wrong it's not funny.
ACC- Saturday
Big 12- Saturday
Big East- Saturday
Pac 12- Saturday

so 4 of the biggest 6 conferences all have their title games on Saturday.

Damn, I thought they were all on Sunday. Oh, well.

(08-19-2015 08:41 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 08:18 PM)Okielite Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 08:05 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 07:29 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 07:07 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Could BYU package deal with Colorado State to the AAC?

The MWC then offers UTEP, UTSA, Rice in an effort to get back into the Texas big. UTEP probably would not agree to it by themselves, IMO.

Think 20 schools, four divisions of five that are geographic in nature.

I'm not seeing that.

What I'm seeing is Boise would be comfortable returning to the Pacific division. In order to do that the MWC would have to pick up 2 Texas schools (or 3 Texas schools if Colorado State was to leave).

SMU I can't see heading to the MWC under any circumstances. The quality of the academic schools and the long term potential of the football conference should keep them in the AAC.

I hope you are joking. MW is much more stable of a conference and SMU does not have to look far to see a school who took MW success and turned it into a P-5 invite.

AAC programs aren't startups, and football level in the American is pretty darn good... I very much doubt SMU looks mwc direction.

The AAC dissolving is only way I see the Stangs leaving for another conference (mwc).

Yep, if AAC got gutted we would look west. We love the eastern exposure we are getting in the AAC for potential students.

(08-19-2015 08:51 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 08:41 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 08:18 PM)Okielite Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 08:05 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 07:29 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Think 20 schools, four divisions of five that are geographic in nature.

I'm not seeing that.

What I'm seeing is Boise would be comfortable returning to the Pacific division. In order to do that the MWC would have to pick up 2 Texas schools (or 3 Texas schools if Colorado State was to leave).

SMU I can't see heading to the MWC under any circumstances. The quality of the academic schools and the long term potential of the football conference should keep them in the AAC.

I hope you are joking. MW is much more stable of a conference and SMU does not have to look far to see a school who took MW success and turned it into a P-5 invite.

AAC programs aren't startups, and football level in the American is pretty darn good... I very much doubt SMU looks mwc direction.

The AAC dissolving is only way I see the Stangs leaving for another conference (mwc).

Yep, if AAC got gutted we would look west. We love the eastern exposure we are getting in the AAC for potential students.

If the AAC reloads after losing Houston, Cincinnati and Memphis with Rice, UMass and ODU I doubt SMU is going anywhere.

The same with Tulane and Tulsa. They may not like being out on an island in a future AAC configuration but the academics of who is involved again wins out.

(08-19-2015 09:07 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 08:41 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 08:05 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  SMU I can't see heading to the MWC under any circumstances. The quality of the academic schools and the long term potential of the football conference should keep them in the AAC.

The AAC dissolving is only way I see the Stangs leaving for another conference (mwc).

If the AAC reloads after losing Houston, Cincinnati and Memphis with Rice, UMass and ODU I doubt SMU is going anywhere.

The same with Tulane and Tulsa. They may not like being out on an island in a future AAC configuration but the academics of who is involved again wins out.

Agree with the above 3 comments.

(08-19-2015 08:51 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 08:41 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 08:18 PM)Okielite Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 08:05 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 07:29 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Think 20 schools, four divisions of five that are geographic in nature.

I'm not seeing that.

What I'm seeing is Boise would be comfortable returning to the Pacific division. In order to do that the MWC would have to pick up 2 Texas schools (or 3 Texas schools if Colorado State was to leave).

SMU I can't see heading to the MWC under any circumstances. The quality of the academic schools and the long term potential of the football conference should keep them in the AAC.

I hope you are joking. MW is much more stable of a conference and SMU does not have to look far to see a school who took MW success and turned it into a P-5 invite.

AAC programs aren't startups, and football level in the American is pretty darn good... I very much doubt SMU looks mwc direction.

The AAC dissolving is only way I see the Stangs leaving for another conference (mwc).

Yep, if AAC got gutted we would look west. We love the eastern exposure we are getting in the AAC for potential students.

I don' think it would take that. Losing UCF, Houston, or Cinci would add more instability to a conference with little to no history playing each other. In reality beyond that and possibly ECU there is little football clout in the AAC.

A Mountain West with BYU is a better conference than the AAC if they lose any of the top football programs. Boise by itself has more clout than anybody in the AAC. As does BYU.

I get the academic angle. I think the AAC wins that to some degree but there are schools like Memphis who are not good academically either and there are more flagships in the MW.

(08-19-2015 08:32 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Boise State
BYU
Colorado State
San Diego State
Fresno State


At that level, that is the most valuable programs in the West that will not be in a Power Conference. Those five will defect from the MWC after new divisional rules happen and they will join the AMERICAN Athletic Conference as a five team division within it.

Elaborate on this please "after new divisional rules happen"....

(08-19-2015 09:46 PM)buffdog Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 08:32 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Boise State
BYU
Colorado State
San Diego State
Fresno State


At that level, that is the most valuable programs in the West that will not be in a Power Conference. Those five will defect from the MWC after new divisional rules happen and they will join the AMERICAN Athletic Conference as a five team division within it.

Elaborate on this please "after new divisional rules happen"....

The rules that the big 12 and ACC have tried to get pushed forward but they keep getting delayed. We have had something like three stated times when the NCAA committee was supposed to meet. The big 12 likes to say that there is no opposition but that simply is not true.

New division rules will happen once some major realignment has happened.

I will be honest with you. I put Fresno at the bottom of that list for a reason but having a second location in California will probably put Fresno over the top, that and Fresno actually having a decent football history. You guys have had a couple of rough seasons but everyone knows you guys will be back.

(08-19-2015 08:32 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Boise State
BYU
Colorado State
San Diego State
Fresno State


At that level, that is the most valuable programs in the West that will not be in a Power Conference. Those five will defect from the MWC after new divisional rules happen and they will join the AMERICAN Athletic Conference as a five team division within it.

I might put Nevada on there as well. Thanks to Collin Kap for making them on the map.

I would love to see this realignment to happen.

AAC will become a Northeast conference after Cincinnati, Memphis, UCF, East Carolina, USF and Houston goes to the Big 12.
C-USA would become a South Central Conference with the likes of Texas State, Rice, SMU, UTSA, Tulsa, Arkansas State, La. Tech, La.-Lafayette, Missouri State, UTEP, Lamar and Tulane.
Sun Belt will be the southeast schools. They will get back the two FAU and FIU, UAB and Southern Mississippi along with Coastal Carolina, Jackson State and Eastern Kentucky.

New Mexico State and Idaho's only hope is for the PAC 12 to take 6 schools from the MWC.

MWC could add Eastern Washington, North Dakota State, West Texas A&M (former FBS like school at D2), Montana, Sacramento State, Cal-Davis, Cal.-Poly.

(08-19-2015 08:25 PM)rosewater Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 08:18 PM)Okielite Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 08:05 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 07:29 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 07:07 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Could BYU package deal with Colorado State to the AAC?

The MWC then offers UTEP, UTSA, Rice in an effort to get back into the Texas big. UTEP probably would not agree to it by themselves, IMO.

Think 20 schools, four divisions of five that are geographic in nature.

I'm not seeing that.

What I'm seeing is Boise would be comfortable returning to the Pacific division. In order to do that the MWC would have to pick up 2 Texas schools (or 3 Texas schools if Colorado State was to leave).

SMU I can't see heading to the MWC under any circumstances. The quality of the academic schools and the long term potential of the football conference should keep them in the AAC.

I hope you are joking. MW is much more stable of a conference and SMU does not have to look far to see a school who took MW success and turned it into a P-5 invite.

How is the MW much more stable? Unlike the AAC, Most of the teams are unhappy with the uneven television payout. Like the AAC, the top part of the league is looking for a life boat out of the conference including Boise.

Looking for a life boat out of the conference? I don't think so. Naturally any MWC school would jump at a P5 conference invitation but they all understand the likelihood of receiving one is minimal. In the meantime they are all perfectly content to remain in the top-rated G5 conference with the strongest (at the moment) G5 football program.

As for stability, the MWC has an intrinsic advantage over the AAC just because of geography. In the western U.S. there's nobody to raid the MWC except the Pac-12, which has zero interest in adding any G5 schools. The AAC on the other hand shares territory with four P5 conferences. Any further realignment involving any of them has the potential to result in the AAC losing its strongest members.

Having said that, I don't believe the MWC has any appeal for an eastward-looking school like SMU. I think that if BYU were to return to the MWC and the AAC were still intact, the MWC would end up adding UTEP, which has a long history with the Mountain Division schools. It would probably take the addition of BYU to the MWC combined with the AAC losing one or more of its top members to get SMU and Houston interested in an MWC invitation.

(08-20-2015 01:08 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 08:25 PM)rosewater Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 08:18 PM)Okielite Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 08:05 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 07:29 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Think 20 schools, four divisions of five that are geographic in nature.

I'm not seeing that.

What I'm seeing is Boise would be comfortable returning to the Pacific division. In order to do that the MWC would have to pick up 2 Texas schools (or 3 Texas schools if Colorado State was to leave).

SMU I can't see heading to the MWC under any circumstances. The quality of the academic schools and the long term potential of the football conference should keep them in the AAC.

I hope you are joking. MW is much more stable of a conference and SMU does not have to look far to see a school who took MW success and turned it into a P-5 invite.

How is the MW much more stable? Unlike the AAC, Most of the teams are unhappy with the uneven television payout. Like the AAC, the top part of the league is looking for a life boat out of the conference including Boise.

Looking for a life boat out of the conference? I don't think so. Naturally any MW school would jump at a P5 conference invitation but they all understand the likelihood of receiving one is minimal. In the meantime they are all perfectly content to remain in the top-rated G5 conference with the strongest (at the moment) G5 football program.

As for stability, the MW has an intrinsic advantage over the AAC just because of geography. In the western U.S. there's nobody to raid the MW except the Pac-12, which has zero interest in adding any G5 schools. The AAC on the other hand shares territory with four P5 conferences. Any further realignment involving any of them has the potential to result in the AAC losing its strongest members.

Having said that, I don't believe the MW has any appeal for an eastward-looking school like SMU, although the addition of BYU to the MW combined with the AAC losing any of its top members would change that calculus.

The only schools that the MWC could add are:
Eastern Washington
Sacramento State
Cal-Davis
Cal-Poly
Montana
North Dakota State
UTEP
UTSA
West Texas A&M

This is just in case they do lose a couple to a P5 conference. I know Scott of the PAC 12 said they are impressed with how San Diego State and Boise State grew their academics and all that, and that they could be a future PAC 12 members. So, those schools need to turn themselves into a very Heavy research institutes just like the PAC 12 schools to get in.

(08-20-2015 01:06 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  I would love to see this realignment to happen.

AAC will become a Northeast conference after Cincinnati, Memphis, UCF, East Carolina, USF and Houston goes to the Big 12.
C-USA would become a South Central Conference with the likes of Texas State, Rice, SMU, UTSA, Tulsa, Arkansas State, La. Tech, La.-Lafayette, Missouri State, UTEP, Lamar and Tulane.
Sun Belt will be the southeast schools. They will get back the two FAU and FIU, UAB and Southern Mississippi along with Coastal Carolina, Jackson State and Eastern Kentucky.

New Mexico State and Idaho's only hope is for the PAC 12 to take 6 schools from the MWC.

MWC could add Eastern Washington, North Dakota State, West Texas A&M (former FBS like school at D2), Montana, Sacramento State, Cal-Davis, Cal.-Poly.

Wake Up, wake up David. Your having a dream.
In what reality would the Big 12 ever add 6 schools? Let's try and deal in the here and now. This is a P5 conference...not a conga line.

(08-20-2015 01:18 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  The only schools that the MWC could add are:
Eastern Washington
Sacramento State
Cal-Davis
Cal-Poly
Montana
North Dakota State
UTEP
UTSA
West Texas A&M

This is just in case they do lose a couple to a P5 conference. I know Scott of the PAC 12 said they are impressed with how San Diego State and Boise State grew their academics and all that, and that they could be a future PAC 12 members. So, those schools need to turn themselves into a very Heavy research institutes just like the PAC 12 schools to get in.

The ''only'' schools? And, you include West Texas A&M in that group?
I know I'm new here....but, they are DII. It would take them at least four years to even become a DI program. Not to mention all the finances, scholarships, facilities, infrastructure and Title IX complications they would have to solve, first.

And, pardon me for asking Dave.....have you ever been to the panhandle of Texas? I don't see any P5 or G5 conference wanting anything to do with Canyon Texas. Almost any other Lone Star Conference school would be a better choice for your example.

(08-20-2015 01:36 AM)MellowCorn Wrote:  

(08-20-2015 01:18 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  The only schools that the MWC could add are:
Eastern Washington
Sacramento State
Cal-Davis
Cal-Poly
Montana
North Dakota State
UTEP
UTSA
West Texas A&M

This is just in case they do lose a couple to a P5 conference. I know Scott of the PAC 12 said they are impressed with how San Diego State and Boise State grew their academics and all that, and that they could be a future PAC 12 members. So, those schools need to turn themselves into a very Heavy research institutes just like the PAC 12 schools to get in.

The ''only'' schools? And, you include West Texas A&M in that group?
I know I'm new here....but, they are DII. It would take them at least four years to even become a DI program. Not to mention all the finances, scholarships, facilities, infrastructure and Title IX complications they would have to solve, first.

And, pardon me for asking Dave.....have you ever been to the panhandle of Texas? I don't see any P5 or G5 conference wanting anything to do with Canyon Texas. Almost any other Lone Star Conference school would be a better choice for your example.

West Texas A&m was a 1A member, now FBS, back until the 1980's. They do have the ability to move up quicker than other D2 schools. The location is that they are like they are neighbors to Amarillo. They have the Amarillo's tv market alone, and not competing with other schools in the area. I do not see the other schools in the Lonestar be able to except for Midwestern State in Wichita Falls could move up. Canyon to Amarillo is like Norman to Oklahoma City. Not a far drive. Midwestern State was D1 and so was Washburn at one time. That is why you should look at the schools that you were rivals at one time.

West Texas State used to be in the MVC when they sponsered football. West Texas A&M's old rivals are:
Saint Louis
Wichita State
Bradley
Cincinnati
North Texas State
Louisville
Memphis
New Mexico State
Southern Illinois
Indiana State
Illinois State.

This is why bringing them back up could help. Kimbrough Memorial Stadium can seat 20,000 fans. Record breaking fans saw a Lone Star Conference game back in 2007 of 23,276. They upgraded with new football locker rooms, new sports park complex, plus their basketball gym holds 5000. The next project should upgrade the First United Bank Center to put more seatings in. As I said, they are more able to move to FBS since they were at that type of level before.

(08-19-2015 07:09 PM)Okielite Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 06:50 PM)f1do Wrote:  I don't think they could afford to rejoin the MWC--at least within the next 4-5 years--for these reasons:
- Buyouts of all their future independent schedule--some games have outs in them but that is for joining a new or existing league with a certain number of "P5 teams" in them. The rest is money out of your pocket. BYU has 11 games in 2016, 12 in 2017, 10 in 2018, 9 in 2019, 8 in 2020 so its not like they can't fill their schedule at least for several more years.
- ESPN contract pays much more than a share of the MWC money would. So no chance of this until at least 2018 (ESPN has option for 2019 as well) when their contract is up for renewal.
- Loss of prestige--the ACC/SEC/B1G count BYU games as P5 for their scheduling guidelines--if they went to a G5 conference, no way those continue to count and scheduling P5 teams--especially H/H--becomes tougher in the future.

Though in the article originally linked Holmoe does say he would "never say never" to joining the MWC again. I just don't see any benefit (saving face, ease of scheduling, etc.) of doing so outweighing the drawbacks compared to independence. Joining a P5 conference on the other hand certainly makes life better than as an independent.

They would not receive an equal share in the MW. They would have a separate TV deal like Boise.
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football...oise-state

So now we can add better exposure for non FB sports and a similar paycheck to the list of reasons they might do this.

Losing Utah and getting BYU is not a bad deal at all for the MW. Bigger, better, more history, etc.. I think this really helps everyone in the MW as well as BYU. They can be the king of the MW. Now they just need to add SMU as well so they can try to repeat the success TCU had in the MW.

Yeah, I would think they would get a deal like BSU, but those monies would be part of the bonus systems with them probably getting a specific amount like BSU. I guess what that would do is add to the bonus system and where everyone will get a better chance to get more than the base because with BSU in the West Divsiona and BYU in the Mtn. Everyone is pretty much guaranteed to get a bonus when they play at BSU or BYU.

(08-19-2015 06:23 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I wonder if it might be that the WCC doesn't want it.

The WCC wants to keep BYU in any, shape or form. It's a massive revenue and exposure boost to have them in the league. They have absolutely no leverage whatsoever in their relations with BYU - the Cougars hold all the power there (just as Notre Dame had similar power in its relations with the old Big East, despite other old Big East fans trying to claim otherwise).

BYU would also take a football-only invite to a power conference immediately.

As as result, this statement is 100% about the BYU AD telling the school's fans that the power conferences (and specifically the Big 12) are NOT going to offer any type of football-only membership, so there's no use in hoping for that type of outcome (which is what a lot of fans have been trying to advocate). It's going to be all-or-nothing in terms of a P5 invite.

By the same token, I don't think this statement has ANYTHING to do with BYU being more open to joining to a G5 league, whether it's the AAC or MWC. BYU's goal is obviously to land in a power conference, but barring that scenario, independence is still vastly preferable to being in a G5 league for branding purposes. BYU has the SEC, Big Ten and ACC explicitly on-the-record that they are considered to be a "power" opponent, which is huge from a perception standpoint.

To that end, the perception standpoint is MUCH more important than any G5 access bowl slot. From a local perspective, BYU being considered to be "lesser" than Utah is COMPLETELY unacceptable to their leadership. Independence allows BYU to continue to argue that they are a "special" school that is a power school even though it doesn't have power conference membership, whereas being in a G5 league structurally makes them inferior to Utah (which is a non-starter). I can't emphasize this enough. BEING IN A G5 LEAGUE MEANS BYU ADMITS THEY ARE INFERIOR TO UTAH, WHICH CANNOT HAPPEN WHEN YOU RUN THAT SCHOOL. G5 conferences have about as much of a shot of adding BYU as they do at adding Notre Dame... meaning that they have no chance at all.

My eyes roll every time I see any type of proposal that has (a) BYU joining a G5 conference as a full member or (b) Notre Dame joining any type of conference as a full member. Those are completely pointless exercises on par with proposing that Ohio State leave the Big Ten or Alabama leave the SEC (and that's saying something in the speculative world of a conference realignment board).

(08-19-2015 07:17 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(08-19-2015 06:36 PM)stever20 Wrote:  With the extra money that BYU would be getting from the Big 12, the WCC wouldn't want it. Also you have the FCOA issues.

I believe all the WCC schools will provide FCOA. BYU has almost twice as many students enrolled as Gonzaga, Saint Mary's and Pepperdine put together (the #1, #3 and #4 basketball teams in '14-'15) but the presidents and ADs knew that before they were accepted. There are concerns to be sure, I just don't see them as crippling for the WCC members.

BYU has yet to win a WCC championship in basketball.

I agree with you, that there doesn't seem to be a competitive reason for the WCC to be driving this.

Seems reasonable that WCC schools will be able and willing to give the upgraded scholarships to at least men's and women's bball players.

And BYU already makes a pretty decent amount of money (and has a decent amount of prestige) from football. So any advantages there would've already been accounted for, when BYU was invited. Plus BYU is sort've a defacto P5 anyway.


So just a football-only, official P5 status doesn't seem like it should cause the WCC to reject BYU.



But then why the heck would BYU come out and say they want a full-invite??

Doesn't make sense to me. WCC plus P5 conference football seems like the perfect combo.


Unless they really think they have a shot at the PAC?

I don't think it's necessary to say this publicly just for joining the MWC as a full member.