(12-25-2012 12:24 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-25-2012 11:53 AM)Cubanbull Wrote:  I think they were added because there wasn't much of a choice to add anyoneelse. In the MWC's case who else could they add? Idaho or NMSU. The MAC adding UMass is questionable

Yeah, but they initially offered USU when BYU went independent, at a time when the MWC was looking at scarfing up the Big 12 leftovers and making a push for an AQ bid. Which, to me, screams of desperation to hang on to the one market/state where the MTN wasn't a failure, Utah.

You have your timing very wrong, Bragg.

The Pac-16 thing fell apart in June of 2010 so the Pac then offered CU and Utah. Immediately after Utah left, BYU's fan base went ballistic about getting stuck in the MWC when their hated rival was getting out and within about only three weeks, BYU announced it was leaving too. Then within a couple months of that, TCU announced it was headed to the BE. The question was then when the MWC should backfill and with whom. USU fans came onto the MWC board in droves saying it was a done deal that at the conference presidents meeting in January it would be announced that their school and UTEP were going to join. SDSU President Steve Weber, who was then chairman of the MWC's board of directors, came out of the final day of the meeting to announce no vote on replacements had even been taken. It wasn't until after SDSU announced it was leaving on Pearl Harbor day in 2011, or about 16 months after BYU announced it was leaving, that USU was added to the MWC.

Except for when USU hosted BYU, USU never had decent attendance even when Gary Andersen was there. Now that Andersen is leaving for Wisconsin, USU becomes almost thoroughly worthless for football. Which is yet another reason why Boise won't be in the MWC come next July.

(12-26-2012 12:57 PM)SleepingGiantsFan Wrote:  

(12-25-2012 12:24 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-25-2012 11:53 AM)Cubanbull Wrote:  I think they were added because there wasn't much of a choice to add anyoneelse. In the MWC's case who else could they add? Idaho or NMSU. The MAC adding UMass is questionable

Yeah, but they initially offered USU when BYU went independent, at a time when the MWC was looking at scarfing up the Big 12 leftovers and making a push for an AQ bid. Which, to me, screams of desperation to hang on to the one market/state where the MTN wasn't a failure, Utah.

You have your timing very wrong, Bragg.

The Pac-16 thing fell apart in June of 2010 so the Pac then offered CU and Utah. Immediately after Utah left, BYU's fan base went ballistic about getting stuck in the MWC when their hated rival was getting out and within about only three weeks, BYU announced it was leaving too.

Wasn't there something about a BYU-WAC "Project", and the MWC turned around and invited USU, who declined, and the next day the MWC invited NEvada and Fresno? That's what I heard, from half-remembered and not super-credible sources.

Quote:USU becomes almost thoroughly worthless for football.

Part of the reason I used them as an example of a school who's geography ("In Utah! Get the SLC market!") is a selling point, but the claim is basically bogus.

Who is top ten all time? And what is all time? The tournament era? The years before that? If you go back before the tournament era, then there's a long list of Ivy League teams that are all time great.

Just looking at the tournament era, this would be my top 15 list:

1. UCLA
2. Kentucky
3. North Carolina
4. Duke
5. Indiana
6. Kansas
7. Louisville
8. Michigan State
9. UConn
10. Cincinnati
11. Oklahoma State
12. Ohio State
13. St. John's
14. San Francisco
15. Florida

In the current era, my Top Ten would be:

1. UConn
2. Kentucky
3. North Carolina
4. Kansas
5. Florida
6. Duke
7. Michigan State
8. Butler
9. UCLA
10. Ohio State

(12-26-2012 01:38 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  Who is top ten all time? And what is all time? The tournament era? The years before that? If you go back before the tournament era, then there's a long list of Ivy League teams that are all time great.

Just looking at the tournament era, this would be my top 15 list:

1. UCLA
2. Kentucky
3. North Carolina
4. Duke
5. Indiana
6. Kansas
7. Louisville
8. Micjigan State
9. UConn
10. Cincinnati
11. Oklahoma State
12. Ohio State
13. St. John's
14. San Francisco
15. Florida

In the current era, my Top Ten would be:

1. UConn
2. Kentucky
3. North Carolina
4. Kansas
5. Florida
6. Duke
7. Michigan State
8. Butler
9. UCLA
10. Ohio State

Define current? What time period are you throwing out there that has UCONN #1?

The "Project" appears to have been a figment of USU's prez/AD's imagination. Here's the scoop as I recall it.

USU sensed an opportunity to scuttle the MWC since at the time it occurred, there appeared to be no way USU would get into the MWC. So during the few weeks between Utah announcing it was leaving for the Pac and BYU's formal announcement it was leaving too, USU apparently talked with former WAC commish Karl Benson and they cooked up the Project. The plan became public through SJ Mercury-News columnist Jon Wilner. Wilner's column said reliable sources had told him BYU was considering returning to the WAC, as were SDSU and UNLV. Boise, Fresno and Nevada hadn't been offered admission to the MWC yet so since there were already rumors that TCU was being courted by the BE, losing Utah, BYU, SDSU and UNLV as well as possibly TCU would have been a stake through the MWC's heart.

Scuttlebutt is that SJSU was supposed to convince SDSU to return to the WAC and Nevada was supposed to do the same with UNLV. But since the first domino was to get BYU to return and USU was unable to get that done, those second dominoes had no chance of falling. They particularly had no chance since the afternoon the Project was made public by Wilner, the MWC offered Boise, Fresno and Nevada, all of which immediately accepted admission. (The WAC had implemented a $5M exit penalty only a few weeks before and everybody had allegedly sworn allegiance to the WAC. IIRC, Boise had refused to approve of the exit penalty but Nevada and Fresno both did. However, once Nevada reneged on its promise, Fresno immediately did so too.) So if anything killed the WAC, it was that stupid plan concocted by USU and Benson. BTW, USU's prez immediately denied its existence but USU's AD had to admit to it a couple days later after so many roads led straight back to USU.

The extent to which USU botched both the Project and then the campaign to get itself admitted to the MWC half a year later speaks volumes about what a mess that school's administration is. So make no mistake. As the USF poster said, USU is going to join the MWC in July only because the MWC was desperate to add two schools and couldn't find anybody better than them and SJSU.

BSU had already been invited to the MWC SGF but other than that pretty much spot on. That’s where the famous email from USU’s pres came out saying “Bob Kustra’s world is crumbling around him” LOL

Wow--and they still got invited over New Mexico State.

(12-26-2012 01:51 PM)EDLUVAR Wrote:  BSU had already been invited to the MWC SGF but other than that pretty much spot on. That’s where the famous email from USU’s pres came out saying “Bob Kustra’s world is crumbling around him” LOL

And this is the conference that wants Boise back . You know if the MWC still had TCU and BYU , then I would say who knows maybe Boise would go back. But now with Jose two plus SDSU out and SJSU and USU in. It's just not that attractive.

(12-26-2012 01:53 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Wow--and they still got invited over New Mexico State.

That shows you how down the line NMSU is

(12-26-2012 09:45 AM)texasflood Wrote:  

(12-25-2012 08:55 PM)First Mate Wrote:  While we are kicking out dead wood don't forget to get rid of USF. They never should have been invited anyway. Nothing more than young arrogant fans with nothing but a TV market to brag about. "Know your role and shut your mouth"- The Rock

ECU was beating BCS level competition before you even had a team.

If you look at the conference history of USF the past 20+ years it is basically an unbroken string of promotions, but based on "potential" not actual performance on football fields, basketball courts, etc.

Probably the most inexplicable aspect of their athletic program is why they have never developed a top-notch baseball team. USF is geographically situated for baseball even moreso for football.

There is some truth to your point, but to be fair USF had a pretty winning FB program overall at the point the BE came calling... at least, considering how embryonic the program was. No conference champs, but overall pretty much winning... only Holtz recently destroyed the program. Mostly winning seasons, I recall. But it was certainly market, etc., and that's the same rationale everyone is using today....

You right about potential though, but I'd say other than TCU and Boise, most of the recent upgrades have been on 'potential' or 'market'.

(12-26-2012 01:06 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-26-2012 12:57 PM)SleepingGiantsFan Wrote:  

(12-25-2012 12:24 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-25-2012 11:53 AM)Cubanbull Wrote:  I think they were added because there wasn't much of a choice to add anyoneelse. In the MWC's case who else could they add? Idaho or NMSU. The MAC adding UMass is questionable

Yeah, but they initially offered USU when BYU went independent, at a time when the MWC was looking at scarfing up the Big 12 leftovers and making a push for an AQ bid. Which, to me, screams of desperation to hang on to the one market/state where the MTN wasn't a failure, Utah.

You have your timing very wrong, Bragg.

The Pac-16 thing fell apart in June of 2010 so the Pac then offered CU and Utah. Immediately after Utah left, BYU's fan base went ballistic about getting stuck in the MWC when their hated rival was getting out and within about only three weeks, BYU announced it was leaving too.

Wasn't there something about a BYU-WAC "Project", and the MWC turned around and invited USU, who declined, and the next day the MWC invited NEvada and Fresno? That's what I heard, from half-remembered and not super-credible sources.

Quote:USU becomes almost thoroughly worthless for football.

Part of the reason I used them as an example of a school who's geography ("In Utah! Get the SLC market!") is a selling point, but the claim is basically bogus.

Pac16 starts to fall apart, Pac has/is inviting Colorado to start splintering the Big12, big 12 re-coalesces and so the pac goes plan b and takes Utah to pair with UC.

BYU during this process starts to get itchy and with a 20mil dollar studio on campus and fear their rival will live them far behind, they being soliciting possible games for independence. Someone in Texas, I think UT, but not sure which school, tips off TCU's AD, wording being ~you're not going to believe what byu is up to.

Around this same time, while driving his daughter to college at USC, Karl Benson the then WAC commsih meets with his friend the PRez of UNLV for breakfast and broaches the subject of UNLV returning to the WAC, SDSU is also contacted by phone, both turn it down out of hand.

The WAC creates a 5mil exit fee, the MWC reacts by calling USU knowing that if anything was afoot they would reject the MWC out of hand, they do, no offer is made. Bob Kustra himself delivers invites to Fresno and UNR to pair with SDSU and UNLV that have been targeted and Boise to bring in their 2 wac rivals.

The wac exit fee ends up being settled for 900k.

Hawaii a few months later holds a press conference to say, The MWC called us and we're negotiating! The MWC says hold on. 250k a visiting team stipend a month or so later and Hawaii is invited.
.
Meatball begins visiting the big wild west. AFA's AD states it is likely they will be going to the big east and they'll just put their other sports in the MVC - the valley says, in public, um, what, no you won't. Army grandstands about being loyal and blah blah, AFA backsout.

SDSU enters the conversation, negotiates some bball games to help offset the Big West.

Boise announces Big East and WAC, SDSU announces the Big East and no other sport destination. 5 days latter SDSU announces the Big West for other sports.

The MWC adds San Jose State and Utah State. The wac has crumbled. The Wac tries to cobble together a sports league.

June 30th approaches, Boise hasn't withdrawn. SDSU stumps for Boise state, the Big East agrees to pay 80percent of the fees and Boise is committed once again this time to the Big West to pair with the big east

It's 6 months later and we'll see what Boise does now

(12-26-2012 02:04 PM)monty Wrote:  

(12-26-2012 01:06 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-26-2012 12:57 PM)SleepingGiantsFan Wrote:  

(12-25-2012 12:24 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-25-2012 11:53 AM)Cubanbull Wrote:  I think they were added because there wasn't much of a choice to add anyoneelse. In the MWC's case who else could they add? Idaho or NMSU. The MAC adding UMass is questionable

Yeah, but they initially offered USU when BYU went independent, at a time when the MWC was looking at scarfing up the Big 12 leftovers and making a push for an AQ bid. Which, to me, screams of desperation to hang on to the one market/state where the MTN wasn't a failure, Utah.

You have your timing very wrong, Bragg.

The Pac-16 thing fell apart in June of 2010 so the Pac then offered CU and Utah. Immediately after Utah left, BYU's fan base went ballistic about getting stuck in the MWC when their hated rival was getting out and within about only three weeks, BYU announced it was leaving too.

Wasn't there something about a BYU-WAC "Project", and the MWC turned around and invited USU, who declined, and the next day the MWC invited NEvada and Fresno? That's what I heard, from half-remembered and not super-credible sources.

Quote:USU becomes almost thoroughly worthless for football.

Part of the reason I used them as an example of a school who's geography ("In Utah! Get the SLC market!") is a selling point, but the claim is basically bogus.

Pac16 starts to fall apart, Pac has/is inviting Colorado to start splintering the Big12, big 12 re-coalesces and so the pac goes plan b and takes Utah to pair with UC.

BYU during this process starts to get itchy and with a 20mil dollar studio on campus and fear their rival will live them far behind, they being soliciting possible games for independence. Someone in Texas, I think UT, but not sure which school, tips off TCU's AD, wording being ~you're not going to believe what byu is up to.

Around this same time, while driving his daughter to college at USC, Karl Benson the then WAC commsih meets with his friend the PRez of UNLV for breakfast and broaches the subject of UNLV returning to the WAC, SDSU is also contacted by phone, both turn it down out of hand.

The WAC creates a 5mil exit fee, the MWC reacts by calling USU knowing that if anything was afoot they would reject the MWC out of hand, they do, no offer is made. Bob Kustra himself delivers invites to Fresno and UNR to pair with SDSU and UNLV that have been targeted and Boise to bring in their 2 wac rivals.

The wac exit fee ends up being settled for 900k.

Hawaii a few months later holds a press conference to say, The MWC called us and we're negotiating! The MWC says hold on. 250k a visiting team stipend a month or so later and Hawaii is invited.
.
Meatball begins visiting the big wild west. AFA's AD states it is likely they will be going to the big east and they'll just put their other sports in the MVC - the valley says, in public, um, what, no you won't. Army grandstands about being loyal and blah blah, AFA backsout.

SDSU enters the conversation, negotiates some bball games to help offset the Big West.

Boise announces Big East and WAC, SDSU announces the Big East and no other sport destination. 5 days latter SDSU announces the Big West for other sports.

The MWC adds San Jose State and Utah State. The wac has crumbled. The Wac tries to cobble together a sports league.

June 30th approaches, Boise hasn't withdrawn. SDSU stumps for Boise state, the Big East agrees to pay 80percent of the fees and Boise is committed once again this time to the Big West to pair with the big east

It's 6 months later and we'll see what Boise does now

Excellent timeline Monte, that's pretty much exactly the way I remember it.

(12-26-2012 01:42 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(12-26-2012 01:38 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  Who is top ten all time? And what is all time? The tournament era? The years before that? If you go back before the tournament era, then there's a long list of Ivy League teams that are all time great.

Just looking at the tournament era, this would be my top 15 list:

1. UCLA
2. Kentucky
3. North Carolina
4. Duke
5. Indiana
6. Kansas
7. Louisville
8. Micjigan State
9. UConn
10. Cincinnati
11. Oklahoma State
12. Ohio State
13. St. John's
14. San Francisco
15. Florida

In the current era, my Top Ten would be:

1. UConn
2. Kentucky
3. North Carolina
4. Kansas
5. Florida
6. Duke
7. Michigan State
8. Butler
9. UCLA
10. Ohio State

Define current? What time period are you throwing out there that has UCONN #1?

The more recent it is, the more current it is. I weighted it heavily on the last ten years.

(12-26-2012 01:43 PM)SleepingGiantsFan Wrote:  The "Project" appears to have been a figment of USU's prez/AD's imagination. Here's the scoop as I recall it.

You don't have a clue what the Project was about.

Benson and I had discussed for years the underlying concept for the project. When it finally came down, however, I was not in the loop and how it came down was different than we had always imagined it would be. BYU wanted to go indy in football as they were mortified that UU got into the PAC while they were left behind. In order to go Indy in football, they needed a home for their Olympic sports and the WAC was only too happy to accommodate them. At that point, anything to screw the MWC was of great interest.

But there was a problem -- if BYU leaves the MWC, then the MWC would likely respond by taking WAC schools and BYU didn't want to join the WAC only to have the whole thing fall apart.

So the agreement was made that the WAC members would sign an agreement to not leave the conference for five years (or, if they did, to pay a $5 mil exit penalty -- which none of them could afford to pay). With that in place, then BYU would come on board.

But the WAC saw an opportunity to do something more-- to take back Boise and San Diego State and to effectively crush the MWC. By signing that agreement, the MWC had no way to expand in the west because the WAC schools were off the table. Further, if BYU goes to the WAC for all but football, then that loss (on top of the loss of Utah, TCU, etc) and on top of the inability to add western schools, would probably be enough of a catalyst to get Boise to come back. And with Boise, would come SDSU. Essentially, the entire MWC would want to come to the WAC after that happened and the WAC could cherry pick the schools they wanted and send the rest to C-USA or the Sun Belt.

The strategy was sound but the execution sucked. The contract was horribly worded, in my view. It failed to anticipate any complications, was unclear on the trigger dates, etc. And worse, the conference failed to recognize how effective that strategy could have been and what the MWC's response to it would be. Meaning, it would have worked so thoroughly that it left the MWC only one course of action -- they had to pay the exit fees for Fresno and Nevada (it turned out) or the MWC would have ceased to exist as a legitimate FBS conference. Even if Fresno and Nevada couldn't afford to pay the exit fees -- which they couldn't -- the MWC could. And given the alternative, they were only to happy to.

So the contract wasn't sufficient to hold anyone and even if it had been, the exit fee was way too small -- it had to be high enough that the MWC couldn't afford to pay it. Maybe $20 mil each, not $5 mil.

So maybe two days after the deal was signed, the MWC invited Fresno and Nevada and offered to pay part of the exit fees and to front the rest and Fresno and Nevada said goodbye to the WAC.

The WAC was outraged, as they should have been. Fresno had taken a leading role in getting the Project approved and had then immediately back-stabbed those that they sold it to. Personally, I'm hard pressed to believe that we didn't know that the MWC would have no choice but to invite us and to pay the costs but who knows? Maybe they hadn't thought that far ahead.

So that is how BYU ended up in the WCC -- the WAC botched it up big time.

In any event, conference expansion generally and specifically this effort at it is why, in my opinion, the MWC survived while the WAC did not.

Yoda out...

(12-26-2012 01:43 PM)SleepingGiantsFan Wrote:  The "Project" appears to have been a figment of USU's prez/AD's imagination. Here's the scoop as I recall it.

USU sensed an opportunity to scuttle the MWC since at the time it occurred, there appeared to be no way USU would get into the MWC. So during the few weeks between Utah announcing it was leaving for the Pac and BYU's formal announcement it was leaving too, USU apparently talked with former WAC commish Karl Benson and they cooked up the Project. The plan became public through SJ Mercury-News columnist Jon Wilner. Wilner's column said reliable sources had told him BYU was considering returning to the WAC, as were SDSU and UNLV. Boise, Fresno and Nevada hadn't been offered admission to the MWC yet so since there were already rumors that TCU was being courted by the BE, losing Utah, BYU, SDSU and UNLV as well as possibly TCU would have been a stake through the MWC's heart.

Scuttlebutt is that SJSU was supposed to convince SDSU to return to the WAC and Nevada was supposed to do the same with UNLV. But since the first domino was to get BYU to return and USU was unable to get that done, those second dominoes had no chance of falling. They particularly had no chance since the afternoon the Project was made public by Wilner, the MWC offered Boise, Fresno and Nevada, all of which immediately accepted admission. (The WAC had implemented a $5M exit penalty only a few weeks before and everybody had allegedly sworn allegiance to the WAC. IIRC, Boise had refused to approve of the exit penalty but Nevada and Fresno both did. However, once Nevada reneged on its promise, Fresno immediately did so too.) So if anything killed the WAC, it was that stupid plan concocted by USU and Benson. BTW, USU's prez immediately denied its existence but USU's AD had to admit to it a couple days later after so many roads led straight back to USU.

The extent to which USU botched both the Project and then the campaign to get itself admitted to the MWC half a year later speaks volumes about what a mess that school's administration is. So make no mistake. As the USF poster said, USU is going to join the MWC in July only because the MWC was desperate to add two schools and couldn't find anybody better than them and SJSU.

This is why I really dont belive this group of Mountain West schools could hold firm against offers from the Big East, assuming we have a better TV contract. This group has spend the last decade screwing one another over--I just dont see any great sense of loyalty there.

The ultimate screw-up the MWC has done is to sign in blood a tv contract that is woefully inadequate, but that is pretty much rock solid and locked into. They simply can not compete with the 6 other conferences with money because they got bent over on the tv contract.

(12-26-2012 10:36 AM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  Historical, recent past, or current season, Bearcat basketball stacks up rather well. The problem was the program was wrecked by a president when the school entered the Big East; however, the rebuilding period is over.

As i said, if we look at current success/status as a brand (say the past 25 or so years), Cincy is surely a top 30 program. Arguably closer to 20 than 30. That does stack up rather well.

(12-26-2012 03:51 PM)texasflood Wrote:  

(12-26-2012 10:36 AM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  Historical, recent past, or current season, Bearcat basketball stacks up rather well. The problem was the program was wrecked by a president when the school entered the Big East; however, the rebuilding period is over.

As i said, if we look at current success/status as a brand (say the past 25 or so years), Cincy is surely a top 30 program. Arguably closer to 20 than 30. That does stack up rather well.

Correct and ths is the same group the MWC fans was touting had voted to stay together as a sign that they woud not accept an invite from the Big East

(12-26-2012 02:57 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-26-2012 01:43 PM)SleepingGiantsFan Wrote:  The "Project" appears to have been a figment of USU's prez/AD's imagination. Here's the scoop as I recall it.

USU sensed an opportunity to scuttle the MWC since at the time it occurred, there appeared to be no way USU would get into the MWC. So during the few weeks between Utah announcing it was leaving for the Pac and BYU's formal announcement it was leaving too, USU apparently talked with former WAC commish Karl Benson and they cooked up the Project. The plan became public through SJ Mercury-News columnist Jon Wilner. Wilner's column said reliable sources had told him BYU was considering returning to the WAC, as were SDSU and UNLV. Boise, Fresno and Nevada hadn't been offered admission to the MWC yet so since there were already rumors that TCU was being courted by the BE, losing Utah, BYU, SDSU and UNLV as well as possibly TCU would have been a stake through the MWC's heart.

Scuttlebutt is that SJSU was supposed to convince SDSU to return to the WAC and Nevada was supposed to do the same with UNLV. But since the first domino was to get BYU to return and USU was unable to get that done, those second dominoes had no chance of falling. They particularly had no chance since the afternoon the Project was made public by Wilner, the MWC offered Boise, Fresno and Nevada, all of which immediately accepted admission. (The WAC had implemented a $5M exit penalty only a few weeks before and everybody had allegedly sworn allegiance to the WAC. IIRC, Boise had refused to approve of the exit penalty but Nevada and Fresno both did. However, once Nevada reneged on its promise, Fresno immediately did so too.) So if anything killed the WAC, it was that stupid plan concocted by USU and Benson. BTW, USU's prez immediately denied its existence but USU's AD had to admit to it a couple days later after so many roads led straight back to USU.

The extent to which USU botched both the Project and then the campaign to get itself admitted to the MWC half a year later speaks volumes about what a mess that school's administration is. So make no mistake. As the USF poster said, USU is going to join the MWC in July only because the MWC was desperate to add two schools and couldn't find anybody better than them and SJSU.

This is why I really dont belive this group of Mountain West schools could hold firm against offers from the Big East, assuming we have a better TV contract. This group has spend the last decade screwing one another over--I just dont see any great sense of loyalty there.

This is true, since at least 1998, the schools have been sticking it to each other with all sorts of power plays and invites.

(12-26-2012 02:53 PM)Yoda Wrote:  

(12-26-2012 01:43 PM)SleepingGiantsFan Wrote:  The "Project" appears to have been a figment of USU's prez/AD's imagination. Here's the scoop as I recall it.

USU sensed an opportunity to scuttle the MWC since at the time it occurred, there appeared to be no way USU would get into the MWC. So during the few weeks between Utah announcing it was leaving for the Pac and BYU's formal announcement it was leaving too, USU apparently talked with former WAC commish Karl Benson and they cooked up the Project. The plan became public through SJ Mercury-News columnist Jon Wilner. Wilner's column said reliable sources had told him BYU was considering returning to the WAC, as were SDSU and UNLV. Boise, Fresno and Nevada hadn't been offered admission to the MWC yet so since there were already rumors that TCU was being courted by the BE, losing Utah, BYU, SDSU and UNLV as well as possibly TCU would have been a stake through the MWC's heart.

Scuttlebutt is that SJSU was supposed to convince SDSU to return to the WAC and Nevada was supposed to do the same with UNLV. But since the first domino was to get BYU to return and USU was unable to get that done, those second dominoes had no chance of falling. They particularly had no chance since the afternoon the Project was made public by Wilner, the MWC offered Boise, Fresno and Nevada, all of which immediately accepted admission. (The WAC had implemented a $5M exit penalty only a few weeks before and everybody had allegedly sworn allegiance to the WAC. IIRC, Boise had refused to approve of the exit penalty but Nevada and Fresno both did. However, once Nevada reneged on its promise, Fresno immediately did so too.) So if anything killed the WAC, it was that stupid plan concocted by USU and Benson. BTW, USU's prez immediately denied its existence but USU's AD had to admit to it a couple days later after so many roads led straight back to USU.

The extent to which USU botched both the Project and then the campaign to get itself admitted to the MWC half a year later speaks volumes about what a mess that school's administration is. So make no mistake. As the USF poster said, USU is going to join the MWC in July only because the MWC was desperate to add two schools and couldn't find anybody better than them and SJSU.

You don't have a clue what the Project was about.

Benson and I had discussed for years the underlying concept for the project. When it finally came down, however, I was not in the loop

. . . and that's obviously why it failed.

Damn that Benson, how stoopid can you be not involving Yoda!

The only thing Monty added to my summary that I'm not sure is accurate is why AFA didn't commit to the BE. Word from a guy who claimed to be a big time AFA booster is that their AD was all hot to trot on the idea and had allegedly contacted the Mizzou Valley Conference about moving AFA's Oly sports over there. The MVC didn't say straight out no way, simply asked whether the AD was speaking for the university. Of course, the AD hadn't yet consulted AFA's commandant, or whatever his title is, and once the head honcho saw how far many MVC schools were to the nearest major airport, he put the kibosh on the idea. Which is why AFA still hasn't committed to the BE to this day. There are a number of things I haven't liked over the years about being in the same conference with AFA (horrible Oly sports, chop blocking, etc.) but one thing I respect greatly is that at service academies, the term "student-athlete" isn't' a misnomer like it is at almost every other FBS school.