I still wonder if the MWC will extend the same deal to Houston and SMU. I don't think they can, and I don't think Houston or SMU would be willing to lose face a accept a lesser deal then the one Boise took.

The MWC will be at 11 programs. I can't see them staying at that number. They will need at least one more team.

UTEP? Without Houston and SMU, I don't think they would go. I know their administration wants to be in a conference that competes against teams in major Texas markets.

Tulsa? I think their fans and maybe big money fans want to play some of those solid western baketball programs, but I don't know if their AD or president wants to leave the major Texas markets. The NBE may extend an invitation to Tulsa now that Boise has backed out. If that is the case, they may take it, but I think the NBE waits to see what happens with SDSU, Houston, and SMU, before they extend that invitation.

I guess we should start to know something by the end of the month.

(01-02-2013 05:24 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  I still wonder if the MWC will extend the same deal to Houston and SMU. I don't think they can, and I don't think Houston or SMU would be willing to lose face a accept a lesser deal then the one Boise took.

The MWC will be at 11 programs. I can't see them staying at that number. They will need at least one more team.

UTEP? Without Houston and SMU, I don't think they would go. I know their administration wants to be in a conference that competes against teams in major Texas markets.

Tulsa? I think their fans and maybe big money fans want to play some of those solid western baketball programs, but I don't know if their AD or president wants to leave the major Texas markets. The NBE may extend an invitation to Tulsa now that Boise has backed out. If that is the case, they may take it, but I think the NBE waits to see what happens with SDSU, Houston, and SMU, before they extend that invitation.

I guess we should start to know something by the end of the month.

Why does the MWC need another team? They've done fine wiithout a championship game for years. A championship game needs to pay more than a 1-12th share or you make more money with just 11. Plus you're second place team is going to have one extra loss. There are enough negatives to going to 12 or more members to make a conference hesitate.

My guess is that SDSU gets worked out as #12.

If they go to 14, it will either be Houston/SMU ... or two of the four from Tulsa, UTEP, Rice, and UTSA (probably Tulsa and UTEP/Rice).

I highly doubt they go 16 ... but if they do, four of the six above probably get invited.

I thought I read somewhere today that there was not a unanimous vote to bring SDSU back, at the moment. Whether that's true or not, the next move seems to be either SDSU is in or not. We will all need to await that decision. Personally, I think they come back as they are an EXTREME outlier by remaining in the BE, and the chances of getting another western team to join them are nil, IMHO.

I also think there is a zero chance of the MWC remaining at 11. That requires a no division, 10 game conference schedule, and I can't see that happen. I also see no imperative for the MWC to go beyond 12. If not SDSU, I think they have some trouble getting one team only to join. Perhaps UTEP, but I think they think hard and long about abandoning Texas brethren.

(01-02-2013 05:47 PM)Cnelson203 Wrote:  I thought I read somewhere today that there was not a unanimous vote to bring SDSU back, at the moment. Whether that's true or not, the next move seems to be either SDSU is in or not. We will all need to await that decision. Personally, I think they come back as they are an EXTREME outlier by remaining in the BE, and the chances of getting another western team to join them are nil, IMHO.

I also think there is a zero chance of the MWC remaining at 11. That requires a no division, 10 game conference schedule, and I can't see that happen. I also see no imperative for the MWC to go beyond 12. If not SDSU, I think they have some trouble getting one team only to join. Perhaps UTEP, but I think they think hard and long about abandoning Texas brethren.

I'm sure Idaho and New Mexico State would accept a Big East invite to give SDSU a travel partner.

(01-02-2013 05:47 PM)Cnelson203 Wrote:  I thought I read somewhere today that there was not a unanimous vote to bring SDSU back, at the moment. Whether that's true or not, the next move seems to be either SDSU is in or not. We will all need to await that decision. Personally, I think they come back as they are an EXTREME outlier by remaining in the BE, and the chances of getting another western team to join them are nil, IMHO.

I also think there is a zero chance of the MWC remaining at 11. That requires a no division, 10 game conference schedule, and I can't see that happen. I also see no imperative for the MWC to go beyond 12. If not SDSU, I think they have some trouble getting one team only to join. Perhaps UTEP, but I think they think hard and long about abandoning Texas brethren.

^This^

I'm sure Idaho and New Mexico State would accept a Big East invite to give SDSU a travel partner.
[/quote]

I'm sure they would, too, but I doubt either gets the invite. Can't see either BSU or NM welcoming their in-state rivals.

(01-02-2013 06:06 PM)Cnelson203 Wrote:  I'm sure Idaho and New Mexico State would accept a Big East invite to give SDSU a travel partner.

I'm sure they would, too, but I doubt either gets the invite. Can't see either BSU or NM welcoming their in-state rivals.
[/quote]

He's saying if SDSU stays in the BE and wants western partners then NMSU and Idaho would say yes.

I don't think we need a partner for SDSU as long as they are football only.

No flame, but SDSU staying in the Big East is just ridiculous at this juncture.

(01-02-2013 09:50 PM)Big Dub Wrote:  No flame, but SDSU staying in the Big East is just ridiculous at this juncture.

Unless the MWC tries to be petty and humiliate San Diego State, causing the school to justifiably say forget the whole thing, and stay in the Big East.

(01-03-2013 03:25 AM)Lolly Popp Wrote:  

(01-02-2013 09:50 PM)Big Dub Wrote:  No flame, but SDSU staying in the Big East is just ridiculous at this juncture.

Unless the MWC tries to be petty and humiliate San Diego State, causing the school to justifiably say forget the whole thing, and stay in the Big East.

Decisions based on pride can be dangerous.

There's a lot of truth in "be careful what you wish for, you just may get it".

(01-02-2013 05:47 PM)Cnelson203 Wrote:  I also think there is a zero chance of the MWC remaining at 11. That requires a no division, 10 game conference schedule, and I can't see that happen.

Not necessarily. The old PAC-10 went many years with not playing everyone in their conference and no divisions or championship game.

(01-03-2013 09:38 AM)Fear The Beak Wrote:  

(01-02-2013 05:47 PM)Cnelson203 Wrote:  I also think there is a zero chance of the MWC remaining at 11. That requires a no division, 10 game conference schedule, and I can't see that happen.

Not necessarily. The old PAC-10 went many years with not playing everyone in their conference and no divisions or championship game.

Big 10 played a long time at 11 with no divisions and not playing everyone.

(01-02-2013 06:11 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(01-02-2013 06:06 PM)Cnelson203 Wrote:  I'm sure Idaho and New Mexico State would accept a Big East invite to give SDSU a travel partner.

I'm sure they would, too, but I doubt either gets the invite. Can't see either BSU or NM welcoming their in-state rivals.

He's saying if SDSU stays in the BE and wants western partners then NMSU and Idaho would say yes.
[/quote]

Thanks MinerInWisconsin I was hoping someone would catch the humor in my sarcasm!

(01-02-2013 05:24 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  I still wonder if the MWC will extend the same deal to Houston and SMU. I don't think they can, and I don't think Houston or SMU would be willing to lose face a accept a lesser deal then the one Boise took.

The MWC will be at 11 programs. I can't see them staying at that number. They will need at least one more team.

UTEP? Without Houston and SMU, I don't think they would go. I know their administration wants to be in a conference that competes against teams in major Texas markets.

Tulsa? I think their fans and maybe big money fans want to play some of those solid western baketball programs, but I don't know if their AD or president wants to leave the major Texas markets. The NBE may extend an invitation to Tulsa now that Boise has backed out. If that is the case, they may take it, but I think the NBE waits to see what happens with SDSU, Houston, and SMU, before they extend that invitation.

I guess we should start to know something by the end of the month.

Extend the same deal as Boise to Houston & SMU???

What???? Of course they wouldn't do that. Did you really just ask that?

Rumor for a while was that Arkansas State, Louisiana, Houston and SMU to the MWC.

I know our AD and Pres have been in contact with them, but to what extent is an unknown.

Will it happen, almost 100% certain it won't.

(01-03-2013 07:03 PM)MU ATO Wrote:  

(01-02-2013 05:24 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  I still wonder if the MWC will extend the same deal to Houston and SMU. I don't think they can, and I don't think Houston or SMU would be willing to lose face a accept a lesser deal then the one Boise took.

The MWC will be at 11 programs. I can't see them staying at that number. They will need at least one more team.

UTEP? Without Houston and SMU, I don't think they would go. I know their administration wants to be in a conference that competes against teams in major Texas markets.

Tulsa? I think their fans and maybe big money fans want to play some of those solid western baketball programs, but I don't know if their AD or president wants to leave the major Texas markets. The NBE may extend an invitation to Tulsa now that Boise has backed out. If that is the case, they may take it, but I think the NBE waits to see what happens with SDSU, Houston, and SMU, before they extend that invitation.

I guess we should start to know something by the end of the month.

Extend the same deal as Boise to Houston & SMU???

What???? Of course they wouldn't do that. Did you really just ask that?

Why not? This is the only part of the agreement that applies only to BSU is the following:

Boise State and the Mountain West must mutually agree to whom Boise State home football games are licensed. The revenue from Boise State home football games shall be retained by the conference.

They get a say in which network shows their games, but the money goes to the conference. All other provisions (national TV bonus, 50-50 split of BCS money) applies to all conference members.

So basically, they may be able to negotiate more exposure for their team individually, but it benefits the conference as whole.

Read more here: http://voices.idahostatesman.com/2013/01...rylink=cpy

(01-03-2013 09:53 PM)geauxcajuns Wrote:  Rumor for a while was that Arkansas State, Louisiana, Houston and SMU to the MWC.

I know our AD and Pres have been in contact with them, but to what extent is an unknown.

Will it happen, almost 100% certain it won't.

Never heard that version. I had heard Arkansas State and Louisiana if MWC lost two more to Big East.

(01-03-2013 11:44 PM)MondoMiner Wrote:  

(01-03-2013 07:03 PM)MU ATO Wrote:  

(01-02-2013 05:24 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  I still wonder if the MWC will extend the same deal to Houston and SMU. I don't think they can, and I don't think Houston or SMU would be willing to lose face a accept a lesser deal then the one Boise took.

The MWC will be at 11 programs. I can't see them staying at that number. They will need at least one more team.

UTEP? Without Houston and SMU, I don't think they would go. I know their administration wants to be in a conference that competes against teams in major Texas markets.

Tulsa? I think their fans and maybe big money fans want to play some of those solid western baketball programs, but I don't know if their AD or president wants to leave the major Texas markets. The NBE may extend an invitation to Tulsa now that Boise has backed out. If that is the case, they may take it, but I think the NBE waits to see what happens with SDSU, Houston, and SMU, before they extend that invitation.

I guess we should start to know something by the end of the month.

Extend the same deal as Boise to Houston & SMU???

What???? Of course they wouldn't do that. Did you really just ask that?

Why not? This is the only part of the agreement that applies only to BSU is the following:

Boise State and the Mountain West must mutually agree to whom Boise State home football games are licensed. The revenue from Boise State home football games shall be retained by the conference.

They get a say in which network shows their games, but the money goes to the conference. All other provisions (national TV bonus, 50-50 split of BCS money) applies to all conference members.

So basically, they may be able to negotiate more exposure for their team individually, but it benefits the conference as whole.

Read more here: http://voices.idahostatesman.com/2013/01...rylink=cpy

I didn't need an explanation of the deal that a football power like Boise State was able to make. Boise has the power to pull deals like this because of what they have. Houston and SMU hardly have that. Boise can shop their home games and they will easily be picked up by many takers.

Houston & SMU? Yea ok.