My opinion, the MWC targets, must have said no, there is no other reason to explain why ECU and Tulane were added while BSU and SDSU were in need of more true western teams.

In my opinion, when the catholic schools left, it would have been perfect timing for the big east to set up an all-sports western division

(12-29-2012 01:34 AM)randaddyminer Wrote:  My opinion, the MWC targets, must have said no, there is no other reason to explain why ECU and Tulane were added while BSU and SDSU were in need of more true western teams.

ECU and Tulane were added before UNLV and Fresno were even approached, so try again.

(12-29-2012 01:36 AM)Kronke Wrote:  

(12-29-2012 01:34 AM)randaddyminer Wrote:  My opinion, the MWC targets, must have said no, there is no other reason to explain why ECU and Tulane were added while BSU and SDSU were in need of more true western teams.

ECU and Tulane were added before UNLV and Fresno were even approached, so try again.

why would they go after ECU and Tulane before any of the MWC schools? It doesn't make sense.

(12-28-2012 09:12 PM)randaddyminer Wrote:  

(12-28-2012 09:00 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  The BE will get more than you believe. And it will in the end take what it wants from the MWC.

I'm curious, why do the nbe newbies believe they will get more than what the conference was previously making?

lol...like theres any chance it would end well for any nBE member answering this question...

(12-28-2012 09:12 PM)randaddyminer Wrote:  I'm curious, why do the nbe newbies believe they will get more than what the conference was previously making?

Because, media partners like paying $1.5 mil per school one year, and $4 million the next year for the exact same schools for no reason other than they have a new name for a conference. Oh, and Temple adds a lot of value.

(12-29-2012 01:52 AM)randaddyminer Wrote:  

(12-29-2012 01:36 AM)Kronke Wrote:  

(12-29-2012 01:34 AM)randaddyminer Wrote:  My opinion, the MWC targets, must have said no, there is no other reason to explain why ECU and Tulane were added while BSU and SDSU were in need of more true western teams.

ECU and Tulane were added before UNLV and Fresno were even approached, so try again.

why would they go after ECU and Tulane before any of the MWC schools? It doesn't make sense.

It makes sense if you know that Rutgers and Louisville were leaving.

I don't see the logic, maybe you guys can explain it to me, but I just don't see it. BSU has been saying they want more western teams, why didn't they get more western teams (MWC)?

(12-29-2012 01:30 PM)randaddyminer Wrote:  I don't see the logic, maybe you guys can explain it to me, but I just don't see it. BSU has been saying they want more western teams, why didn't they get more western teams (MWC)?

I don't think anyone here can answer that.

I think that most member fans feel that there should have been western teams added at the same time that Tulane and ECU were invited.

To be honest, I also think that it's perplexing to most that there's still discussion of western football only membership when a division of western based all sports programs with minimal crossover non-football travel would/could be more attractive to potential invitees.

Perhaps there's a master plan that none of us see. With Boise being the most valuable asset, the process appears to be a little strange on the surface. Of course what can be done is entirely dependent on what programs are willing to leave the MWC and perhaps that's what we saw played out when Tulane and ECU were added.

....just a row 33 fan's opinions and observations.

I'm just starting to feel that either the big east comish is either dumb or he just doesn't want a western division anymore since there is no more AQ.

edit: or MWC teams already said no

(12-28-2012 09:00 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  The BE will get more than you believe. And it will in the end take what it wants from the MWC.

the BE has the AQ. the BE will give us a gazillion dollars in magic TV money. the BE will a$$rape the mwc. the BE will build a space station on mars. the BE will end human suffering. the BE will cure the common cold.

horsesnit. at this rate, the fail oozing out of the BE is so massive that they will be asking the obama administration for a GM sized bailout before it's all over with. and YOU should be pissed off. it's amazing to me that the schools that have been deceived into joining this collapse have become it's most ardent supporters, but I suppose that was the BE commissioner's intent in inviting them in the first place.

I'm not dumping on the defecting schools, mind you. I never have. I'm dumping on the dishonest enterprise that the BE has become.

(12-29-2012 02:01 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  

(12-29-2012 01:30 PM)randaddyminer Wrote:  I don't see the logic, maybe you guys can explain it to me, but I just don't see it. BSU has been saying they want more western teams, why didn't they get more western teams (MWC)?

I don't think anyone here can answer that.

I think that most member fans feel that there should have been western teams added at the same time that Tulane and ECU were invited.

To be honest, I also think that it's perplexing to most that there's still discussion of western football only membership when a division of western based all sports programs with minimal crossover non-football travel would/could be more attractive to potential invitees.

Perhaps there's a master plan that none of us see. With Boise being the most valuable asset, the process appears to be a little strange on the surface. Of course what can be done is entirely dependent on what programs are willing to leave the MWC and perhaps that's what we saw played out when Tulane and ECU were added.

....just a row 33 fan's opinions and observations.

The only thing that makes sense to me is that the basketball schools, which held a 7-4 majority at the time, refused to approve anybody other than Tulane. Remember--at that time they were replaceing an eastern all-sports member (Rutgers) and another eastern all-sports member they expected to lose (Louisville). They only added ECU as a football only because the basketball schools pretty much stuffed the football schools when ECU was brought up as an all-sports addition. So, if the basketball schools didnt want Tulane, Tulane wouldnt have been added. Just ask ECU aboiut that.

Remember, presidents vote on new members---not AD's. My guess is the basketball presidents saw Tulane as a peer private institution with high academics. When they returned home, the reaction to thier selection wasnt very good as AD's and fans see conference peers in terms of RPI's and recent bowl appearances. It all became a moot point when the behind the scense negotiations with ESPN yeilded a nice enough contract number that the C-7 could split. The rest is history.

FWIW---thats what I think happened. In the end, Tulane was basically scapegoated to cover an unpopular decision by the basketball school presidents.

I know it's fun to root for the Big East to be worth nothing in TV negotiations, but if the Big East is worth nothing then C-USA will be worth less than nothing when it's deal expires in a few years. C-USA followed the exact same model as the Big East, just with less established large market schools. I know no one in C-USA will agree but it's better long term if the markets=TV money model works since every league followed it. If it's not then every gang of 5 league is essentially screwed and all are completely worthless.

It's not Gang of Five. The conferences themselves are officially using the phrase Group of Five. Gang of Five was what fans called Utah, BYU, Wyoming, Colorado State, and Air Force when they broke up the WAC-16 by taking half the conference away to create the MWC. Let's keep the terms separate.

good grief lollypop what difference does it make? You're so uptight i bet you couldn't shoot a greased BB up your butt.

(12-29-2012 04:55 PM)Lolly Popp Wrote:  It's not Gang of Five. The conferences themselves are officially using the phrase Group of Five. Gang of Five was what fans called Utah, BYU, Wyoming, Colorado State, and Air Force when they broke up the WAC-16 by taking half the conference away to create the MWC. Let's keep the terms separate.

Naw. That's the Airport 5.

they should just call us the "fab 1 + big east + mac + sbc + mwc"

(12-29-2012 04:55 PM)Lolly Popp Wrote:  It's not Gang of Five. The conferences themselves are officially using the phrase Group of Five. Gang of Five was what fans called Utah, BYU, Wyoming, Colorado State, and Air Force when they broke up the WAC-16 by taking half the conference away to create the MWC. Let's keep the terms separate.

Gang of Four was a great band
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFU_1h7io0Y

(12-28-2012 09:00 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  The BE will get more than you believe. And it will in the end take what it wants from the MWC.

Do you still think the Big East will take what it wants from the MWC?.....

(12-31-2012 03:50 PM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  

(12-28-2012 09:00 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  The BE will get more than you believe. And it will in the end take what it wants from the MWC.

Do you still think the Big East will take what it wants from the MWC?.....

He meant C-USA.

(12-29-2012 04:57 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  good grief lollypop what difference does it make? You're so uptight i bet you couldn't shoot a greased BB up your butt.

The difference is that it's WRONG. When somebody points out the right term, why insist on using the wrong term? It makes no sense. Things should be called by the proper name. I also hate when people type "would of," "should of," and "could of" ... or "parody" instead of "parity" ... or "you're" instead of "your" ... or "there" instead of "their" ... and so forth. But none of this is a surprise in a nation where some keep calling the President the wrong religion.