SMU n Memphis for 2

UTSA n UTEP for 4

(10-11-2021 12:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-11-2021 11:19 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Frankly I don't see the add value without SMU.

This. MWC should not even consider moving into the central time zone unless SMU is joining.

And, I don’t see SMU doing that. SMU is in an incredibly tough spot athletically — their athletic profile is much more like the AAC teams that are moving to the Big 12 than the teams that are remaining in the AAC, but the Big 12 already has a member in the DFW area and will now have four teams in Texas, so SMU is never going there. But… moving to the MWC is not a way out of that box for SMU. They’re in that same impossible spot whether they are in the AAC or MWC.

I'd say you need to break that news carefully to CSU/AFA, who couldn't be sending louder signals about getting into Texas if they tried. I hope the MWC ignores them and stands pat.

(10-11-2021 01:32 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(10-11-2021 12:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-11-2021 11:19 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Frankly I don't see the add value without SMU.

This. MWC should not even consider moving into the central time zone unless SMU is joining.

And, I don’t see SMU doing that. SMU is in an incredibly tough spot athletically — their athletic profile is much more like the AAC teams that are moving to the Big 12 than the teams that are remaining in the AAC, but the Big 12 already has a member in the DFW area and will now have four teams in Texas, so SMU is never going there. But… moving to the MWC is not a way out of that box for SMU. They’re in that same impossible spot whether they are in the AAC or MWC.

I'd say you need to break that news carefully to CSU/AFA, who couldn't be sending louder signals about getting into Texas if they tried. I hope the MWC ignores them and stands pat.

I’m not Craig Thompson. Dealing with a couple of members who are outvoted by the majority is part of his job description.

UTSA + TXST.

Close proximity to each other (1 hour by car), in a demographic/economic growth area. A rivalry waiting to start. Easy to knock out 2 road games on the same trip in MBB.

If the poop rumor is true, then UTSA probably wouldn't go to the MWC even if invited. If they don't have money for exit/entrance fees and budget increase for the AAC, then they probably don't for the MWC either.

So I think UNT and Rice would be the most likely to be invited.

North Texas might prefer the MWC over the AAC but Rice may not. The AAC offers them peer private schools that the MWC doesn't have.

So the issue may be that North Texas is the only one willing to come. I'm sure the conference would prefer two.

SMU is definitely the prize in this hunt along with another Texas team. I think they want to guarantee teams in the mountain division a game in Texas every year, similar to Navy's demand. However unless the AAC gets completely gutted and SMU is left alone, I don't see them leaving the AAC. I think SMU and Rice would be the best options for the reason already mentioned. Both are highly rated universities that raise the prestige of the MWC and they are both located in huge urban areas that are easy to fly in and out of and provide more access to more recruits.

North Texas unfortunately is a redundancy with SMU in the metro area already. UTSA although in a fantastic metro area, I think has too much to work on for facilities to be realistic. Texas State could be a good option but their athletics are bottom of the barrell and I don't think SMU would want to be connected with them.

I do think the possibility of SMU, Tulsa and Wichita State to offset Hawaii's football-only membership is quite compelling. That would raise their football and basketball while establishing themselves as the best G5 conference. It would kill the AAC.

TULSA & SMU

The problem is the TV contract is not as good as the AAC. If they had the ESPN type deal then they could go for 16: Memphis, Tulsa, SMU and UTSA.

But I really can't see anyone leaving the AAC for the MWC, it's a sideways move, less TV, some later kickoff starts, some long distance basketball games in California, Nevada, Utah and Idaho, and a hefty exit fee of around $17m (using UConn as the model).

And I can't see the MWC adding two schools not from the American. The best possible pair would be UTSA and North Texas, that's one south Texas one north Texas, but that is not a win. UTSA is by far the best of the non-AAC available.

This could also get shot down if UTSA is on the AAC expansion, which I think they will be. My bet is airports and recruiting: Charlotte, FAU, UTSA and UAB. That effectively leaves nothing for the MWC to go after in Texas.

(10-11-2021 02:23 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  TULSA & SMU

Theres zero chance those schools leave the AAC anytime soon. Maybe in the future if the AAC is stripped of more programs such as Memphis and USF.

(10-11-2021 11:19 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(10-11-2021 10:55 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Why Tulsa? Much better options than Tulsa!
We already have 1 low enrollment student body with AF, don’t need one that is the lowest enrollment of all of FBS

Who would your 2 be? Tulsa has WAC history and been with SMU for a long time (WAC > CUSA > AAC) so they make a good pair. Rice would be my choice but commitment to athletics is nearly absent. UTSA is an up-and-comer with room to grow. North Texas may be the next best after SMU but they share a market so they may be a strike.

If it was up to me I would add UTSA and Texas St.

(10-11-2021 11:01 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Until the B12 stuff gets settled what incentive would there be for SMU to move the MWC? I can see scenarios where maybe if the B12 added Memphis and USF maybe they'd consider it, even then I wouldn't guarantee it, but why would they pay that buyout now?

Agreed. I think the AAC/MWC stalemate will stay that way until the Big 12 decides any next steps. No real reason for teams from either side to switch right now.

(10-11-2021 01:32 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(10-11-2021 12:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-11-2021 11:19 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Frankly I don't see the add value without SMU.

This. MWC should not even consider moving into the central time zone unless SMU is joining.

And, I don’t see SMU doing that. SMU is in an incredibly tough spot athletically — their athletic profile is much more like the AAC teams that are moving to the Big 12 than the teams that are remaining in the AAC, but the Big 12 already has a member in the DFW area and will now have four teams in Texas, so SMU is never going there. But… moving to the MWC is not a way out of that box for SMU. They’re in that same impossible spot whether they are in the AAC or MWC.

I'd say you need to break that news carefully to CSU/AFA, who couldn't be sending louder signals about getting into Texas if they tried. I hope the MWC ignores them and stands pat.

CSU wants Texas recruiting and to stop playing night games
AFA wants more exposure in "Red" states
Boise wants to be in the West Division of the MWC.

Adding Texas schools, or SMU/Tulsa satisfies all of these.
Personally I'd add UTEP, just for history, but it sounds like the MWC isn't interested.

(10-11-2021 04:30 PM)The Front Ranger Wrote:  

(10-11-2021 01:32 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(10-11-2021 12:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-11-2021 11:19 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Frankly I don't see the add value without SMU.

This. MWC should not even consider moving into the central time zone unless SMU is joining.

And, I don’t see SMU doing that. SMU is in an incredibly tough spot athletically — their athletic profile is much more like the AAC teams that are moving to the Big 12 than the teams that are remaining in the AAC, but the Big 12 already has a member in the DFW area and will now have four teams in Texas, so SMU is never going there. But… moving to the MWC is not a way out of that box for SMU. They’re in that same impossible spot whether they are in the AAC or MWC.

I'd say you need to break that news carefully to CSU/AFA, who couldn't be sending louder signals about getting into Texas if they tried. I hope the MWC ignores them and stands pat.

CSU wants Texas recruiting and to stop playing night games
AFA wants more exposure in "Red" states
Boise wants to be in the West Division of the MWC.

Adding Texas schools, or SMU/Tulsa satisfies all of these.
Personally I'd add UTEP, just for history, but it sounds like the MWC isn't interested.

It doesn't matter if SMU and Tulsa say no. Then the projetc is DOA

(10-11-2021 04:39 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(10-11-2021 04:30 PM)The Front Ranger Wrote:  

(10-11-2021 01:32 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(10-11-2021 12:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-11-2021 11:19 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Frankly I don't see the add value without SMU.

This. MWC should not even consider moving into the central time zone unless SMU is joining.

And, I don’t see SMU doing that. SMU is in an incredibly tough spot athletically — their athletic profile is much more like the AAC teams that are moving to the Big 12 than the teams that are remaining in the AAC, but the Big 12 already has a member in the DFW area and will now have four teams in Texas, so SMU is never going there. But… moving to the MWC is not a way out of that box for SMU. They’re in that same impossible spot whether they are in the AAC or MWC.

I'd say you need to break that news carefully to CSU/AFA, who couldn't be sending louder signals about getting into Texas if they tried. I hope the MWC ignores them and stands pat.

CSU wants Texas recruiting and to stop playing night games
AFA wants more exposure in "Red" states
Boise wants to be in the West Division of the MWC.

Adding Texas schools, or SMU/Tulsa satisfies all of these.
Personally I'd add UTEP, just for history, but it sounds like the MWC isn't interested.

It doesn't matter if SMU and Tulsa say no. Then the projetc is DOA

Tulsa and UTEP (MST) makes most sense. If Tulsa says no, then NMSU. SMU will hold out to see if they get an invite from Big 12.

I think there's two different arguments being made at the same time, and disagreements are ensuing with people not on the same topic. There's a difference between "Expanding for the goal of adding TV viewers and increasing your power" and "raiding a conference to create superiority over them"

If you were looking for "The best two additions from the CTZ that the MWC could add" the answer is SMU and someone else. But if the goal is to make sure you're #6 and the AAC can't be, THAT'S why everyone is mentioning Tulsa.

Personally, I'd make the case that Tulane would be a better pick than Tulsa. But I also think that the "Two additions" is the wrong way to go.

The best play would be: Invite Memphis (assuming they turn it down), SMU, Tulane, North Texas and UTSA, while telling UAB that if Boise State leaves the MWC, you want them to take their place.

This gives you 16 instead of 14, which makes a cleaner division cut (Wyoming, CSU, Air Force, New Mexico with the four Central teams for East/West. Adding TWO teams means the line is between Boise State and Utah State).

It also leaves the AAC with: Memphis (til they join the Big 12), Tulsa (on an island) and ECU, USF, Temple, Navy, and Wichita State. It turns the AAC from #6 to "Why are we even together?"

It shuts them out of all the major markets in the CTZ except pairing Rice with Tulsa, having no one in the middle, and needing to take small market teams to bridge the gap between Tulsa/Rice and the Eastern seaboard.

SMU would have a huge exit fee to move to a media deal approx. the same AND lose Eastern time zone exposure? Not happening.

(10-11-2021 06:17 PM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote:  SMU would have a huge exit fee to move to a media deal approx. the same AND lose Eastern time zone exposure? Not happening.

They are not staying for CUSA -3.0.

AAC TV deal will be reworked... They will lose money with Houston, Cinci and UCF leaving.

UConn’s exit triggered a clause in the American’s media-rights agreement allowing ESPN to amend the agreement if a school leaves the league, but AAC commissioner Mike Aresco cautions this is far from a renegotiation. “Any time a school leaves, you potentially negotiate an adjustment because obviously you lost something,” Aresco told the Orlando Sentinel Thursday. “We lost one of our teams and right now, we don’t have any intentions of replacing them, at least not for now.

Link
https://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/c...story.html

Throwing away any notion of “would school X leave where they are now?”, would just 2 CTZ teams create any sort of critical mass for a league?

When the PAC 12 was making their play for a raid of the Big XII, for example, they didn’t just stop at 2 teams. Granted, there’s a significant difference between the PAC and the MW, and at least part of the reason for making a larger play was probably to make those CTZ teams comfortable in having a decent number of local opponents.

If you are aiming for CTZ games, if you only have two host schools in that area then they’re going to be in all those games (at least the ones originating there). That’s a media advantage for them over their western brethren, and questionable as to whether the same teams being half of the slate would be attractive to viewers.

If I were to be in charge of MW CTZ expansion and had a mandate of two teams only, I’d probably aim for SMU and Rice. Just like the Big XII with TCU and Houston, they wouldn’t have one of the top two brands in the state, but they’d actually BE in those two key markets. There’d be local coverage and local prospects would have hometown options.in the MW to play for or visit. But even with teams on those two markets, it’s still only 2 CTZ teams.

(10-11-2021 09:33 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  Throwing away any notion of “would school X leave where they are now?”, would just 2 CTZ teams create any sort of critical mass for a league?

When the PAC 12 was making their play for a raid of the Big XII, for example, they didn’t just stop at 2 teams. Granted, there’s a significant difference between the PAC and the MW, and at least part of the reason for making a larger play was probably to make those CTZ teams comfortable in having a decent number of local opponents.

If you are aiming for CTZ games, if you only have two host schools in that area then they’re going to be in all those games (at least the ones originating there). That’s a media advantage for them over their western brethren, and questionable as to whether the same teams being half of the slate would be attractive to viewers.

If I were to be in charge of MW CTZ expansion and had a mandate of two teams only, I’d probably aim for SMU and Rice. Just like the Big XII with TCU and Houston, they wouldn’t have one of the top two brands in the state, but they’d actually BE in those two key markets. There’d be local coverage and local prospects would have hometown options.in the MW to play for or visit. But even with teams on those two markets, it’s still only 2 CTZ teams.

You hit the key points. “Only 2” won’t cut it and Rice and SMU are more-or-less musts. Throw in Tulane, Tulsa, and Wichita St and you got a really good CST content.