Still not sure how adding Boise solves any travel issues for TCU..

nvspuds Wrote:Still not sure how adding Boise solves any travel issues for TCU..

You don't have to be close in geography for travel partners to work. It's for the schools travelling to your school. It allows you to travel to two schools one one road trip instead of just one. Without travel partners you have to fly to each school individually. In order to visit UNM and TCU it would require four flights. It would require four days in one week. With travel partners, you fly to New Mexico and bus to Fort Worth. It only requires two sets of plane tickets and one bus ride. It only requires two or three days of missed classes per road trip. This applies for every sport the MWC sponsors. By having travel partners, it cuts the amount of airline tickets in half. Having TCU/UNM as travel partners would actually help TCU and UNM, because it causes visiting teams to take a long bus ride in between games. It would make that road trip more difficult.

Adding Boise would shift the MWC travel partners to this arrangement:

TCU/UNM
AFA/CSU
BYU/Utah
Boise/Wyo
UNLV/SDSU


Or you could keep CSU/WYO and pair up AFA/Boise. I don't know which one would be cheaper and require less travel.

Cowboy Junky Wrote:When we added TCU we didn't do it because everyone else expanded. We were going to expand before the ACC raided the Big East. The reason we needed to expand was for the football schedule. When we expanded, the season was only 11 games long. With 8 Mountain West schools, we had to schedule 4 out of conference games. Scheduling that many ooc games for teams from the mountain time zone leads to 2 for 1's and 1 and dones with BCS schools. The Mountain West is trying to get away from those arrangements. Now a twelfth game has been added to the schedule. With 9 teams the Mountain West still has to schedule 4 ooc games. Now, with the rule allowing one division 1aa team to count, it's even more difficult to schedule ooc football games against good competition without playing 2 for 1's and one and dones. Currently, it's even more difficult for the MWC to fill our ooc football schedule than it was before we added TCU. With a tenth team we would only have to schedule 3 ooc games, which is the same reason we added TCU.

In addition, with a tenth team, it solves basketball scheduling problems, provides travel partners for minor sports, and can help address our weaknesses.

I think a tenth team is coming within the year.

Well just a couple of things about this.

First is that the MWC did not get serious about expanding until the ACC was making thier move. Here is another old article about it.

http://mb4.scout.com/futahstatefrm27.sho...ic&index=1

Quote:For the past five years, an eight-team MWC has worked well, retaining more revenue for its members and keeping the league stronger, with fewer bad programs to drag it down.
However, the decision last month by the Atlantic Coast Conference to expand from nine to 12 schools, may set off a domino effect that will hit the MWC before we know it.
If the ACC grabs Miami, Syracuse and Boston College from the Big East, then the Big East will be forced to make changes. Perhaps the Big East will try to grab some teams from Conference USA to make itself stronger.
Then one of those two leagues would be left weaker, leaving the MWC on the edge of the nation's "Big Six" conferences that control most of the money in the Bowl Championship Series (BCS). The MWC would then have to decide whether adding more teams, say a Boise State or Fresno State, would enhance the conference and its chances of moving up the BCS ladder.
As was reported in a Deseret News article last week, the Mountain West Conference officials and school presidents don't foresee a vote on expansion coming in this week's annual meetings, which run for the next three days in Carlsbad, Calif., although the topic will be discussed.
MWC Commissioner Craig Thompson said there's no sense of urgency in the conference, but he also said his league must be "reactive" as well as "pro-active."
University of Utah president Bernie Machen, who is the chairman of this week's meetings, said he "can't imagine going to 12" schools on the heels of the disbanded 16-team WAC of five years ago, but says many possibilities will be discussed this week.

They saw an opportunity to do it. It was bound to happen sometime, but the ACC raid speeded up the events.

As for the 12th game, Holmoe did tell USU's AD that the MWC would consider a 9th conference game, but that the school president's weren't sure about it. 1 thing that could prevent this is the OOC games that many teams have on tap. Wyoming and USU are actually signed to a long term deal so they have a new annual series. In addition, New Mexico, Utah, UNLV, TCU, the AFA (2 games) and CSU all have OOC games against other foes. Supposedly BYU wants to maintain the historical series with USU so they could go into that camp also. Taking away an OOC game and adding a conference game may not be what they want. (They could want diversity in the OOC schedules and 4 OOC games provide that.) Lastly the 9 team league gives every team 4 home games and 4 away games for the conference crown. The 9th conference game would add an advantage to some teams by giving them 5 home games.

One final thing and mark my words. Expansion will not happen within a year. The MWC was discussing the possibilities 18 months before it happened with TCU. And currently they (MWC officials) have said that they don't want to do it soon.

Trust me on this. I'm not lying to you. The MWC was going to expand regardless of the actions of the ACC. I don't know if you were reading the MWC and WAC boards before you became a member of the Wac, but it's true. The MWC was planning on expanding to make it easier on the football schools.

Scheduling 4 ooc games is difficult for non-bcs schools. It's the reason why we added TCU, not the actions of the ACC.

There's a reason why TCU, Wyoming, and three Big East schools were the last schools to fill out their schedules this year. It's very difficult to schedule 4 ooc games.

What Thompson said the president's wanted was to wait a couple of years and see how nine teams played out. They said that before the NCAA added the twelfth game, and after this season it's a couple of years.

Cowboy Junky Wrote:

nvspuds Wrote:Still not sure how adding Boise solves any travel issues for TCU..

You don't have to be close in geography for travel partners to work. It's for the schools travelling to your school. It allows you to travel to two schools one one road trip instead of just one. Without travel partners you have to fly to each school individually. In order to visit UNM and TCU it would require four flights. It would require four days in one week. With travel partners, you fly to New Mexico and bus to Fort Worth. It only requires two sets of plane tickets and one bus ride. It only requires two or three days of missed classes per road trip. This applies for every sport the MWC sponsors. By having travel partners, it cuts the amount of airline tickets in half. Having TCU/UNM as travel partners would actually help TCU and UNM, because it causes visiting teams to take a long bus ride in between games. It would make that road trip more difficult.

Adding Boise would shift the MWC travel partners to this arrangement:

TCU/UNM
AFA/CSU
BYU/Utah
Boise/Wyo
UNLV/SDSU


Or you could keep CSU/WYO and pair up AFA/Boise. I don't know which one would be cheaper and require less travel.

Fly to New Mexico and bus to Fort Worth? Ummm... You're aware that that's like a 12-hour bus ride? Somehow I don't see that happening.

Then take a flight to UNM, a short flight to Fort Worth, and a flight home. It still saves you more money than flying to UNM, flying home, flying to Fort Worth, and then flying home.

Cowboy Junky Wrote:Trust me on this. I'm not lying to you. The MWC was going to expand regardless of the actions of the ACC. I don't know if you were reading the MWC and WAC boards before you became a member of the Wac, but it's true. The MWC was planning on expanding to make it easier on the football schools.

Scheduling 4 ooc games is difficult for non-bcs schools. It's the reason why we added TCU, not the actions of the ACC.

There's a reason why TCU, Wyoming, and three Big East schools were the last schools to fill out their schedules this year. It's very difficult to schedule 4 ooc games.

What Thompson said the president's wanted was to wait a couple of years and see how nine teams played out. They said that before the NCAA added the twelfth game, and after this season it's a couple of years.

I trust you actually and if you notice I did say that TCU's (or someone else's) addition was inevitable.

However, the ACC has been planning to make moves like the one that they made for nearly a decade as the article I originally posted pointed out. They finally got to the point where it was possible in 2003-04, but Miami leaving the BE has been brewing for a very long time. That is all I meant.

As for the 4 OOC games, you are right it is difficult. However, that is one reason why the MWC actually needs a healthy enough WAC. The two leagues do play several games, it is easy enough for them travel wise, and there is some interest in the games.

But in the pre-TCU days some MWC schools (Wyoming and SDSU) only had a guaranteed 3 games at home every other year. With TCU now in the league there are 4 games so they only have to worry about 2 games to get a 6 game home schedule. (Wyoming actually only has to worry about 1 some years since USU is now a regular on its future schedule.)

erdaaggie Wrote:

Cowboy Junky Wrote:Trust me on this. I'm not lying to you. The MWC was going to expand regardless of the actions of the ACC. I don't know if you were reading the MWC and WAC boards before you became a member of the Wac, but it's true. The MWC was planning on expanding to make it easier on the football schools.

Scheduling 4 ooc games is difficult for non-bcs schools. It's the reason why we added TCU, not the actions of the ACC.

There's a reason why TCU, Wyoming, and three Big East schools were the last schools to fill out their schedules this year. It's very difficult to schedule 4 ooc games.

What Thompson said the president's wanted was to wait a couple of years and see how nine teams played out. They said that before the NCAA added the twelfth game, and after this season it's a couple of years.

I trust you actually and if you notice I did say that TCU's (or someone else's) addition was inevitable.

However, the ACC has been planning to make moves like the one that they made for nearly a decade as the article I originally posted pointed out. They finally got to the point where it was possible in 2003-04, but Miami leaving the BE has been brewing for a very long time. That is all I meant.

As for the 4 OOC games, you are right it is difficult. However, that is one reason why the MWC actually needs a healthy enough WAC. The two leagues do play several games, it is easy enough for them travel wise, and there is some interest in the games.

But in the pre-TCU days some MWC schools (Wyoming and SDSU) only had a guaranteed 3 games at home every other year. With TCU now in the league there are 4 games so they only have to worry about 2 games to get a 6 game home schedule. (Wyoming actually only has to worry about 1 some years since USU is now a regular on its future schedule.)

It's essential that the Wac survive. We need other western teams to play ooc. We need the votes the Wac brings to the committees, their poll representations. Basically, it doesn't help anyone to destroy the Wac.

Listen to KingMiner's and erdaaggie's voice of reason. Aaahh, how refreshing!

Cowboy Junky Wrote:Then take a flight to UNM, a short flight to Fort Worth, and a flight home. It still saves you more money than flying to UNM, flying home, flying to Fort Worth, and then flying home.

Admittedly, that would be less clumsy than the status quo. Still, New Mexico is a less-than-ideal travel partner for TCU. A better travel parter arrangement would be the following:

Utah/BYU
Wyoming/CSU
Air Force/New Mexico
UNLV/SDSU
TCU/new Texas school

Under this scenario, every school in the conference would be within driving distance of its travel partner. (Admittedly, the bus trips between New Mexico and Air Force and between UNLV and SDSU wouldn't be fun, but it would definitely be doable. And it would be a lot more economical than flying for minor sports.)

StanfordAggie Wrote:

Cowboy Junky Wrote:Then take a flight to UNM, a short flight to Fort Worth, and a flight home. It still saves you more money than flying to UNM, flying home, flying to Fort Worth, and then flying home.

Admittedly, that would be less clumsy than the status quo. Still, New Mexico is a less-than-ideal travel partner for TCU. A better travel parter arrangement would be the following:

Utah/BYU
Wyoming/CSU
Air Force/New Mexico
UNLV/SDSU
TCU/new Texas school

Under this scenario, every school in the conference would be within driving distance of its travel partner. (Admittedly, the bus trips between New Mexico and Air Force and between UNLV and SDSU wouldn't be fun, but it would definitely be doable. And it would be a lot more economical than flying for minor sports.)

I agree if that school is Utep. Were not going to add anyone just because they're close to Fort Worth. You can cross Houston, SMU, and Rice off the list. They all have attendance, performance, and philisophical problems they need to solve. Utep is a western school that is experiencing success.

"Travel partner geographical fit" is way down the list on MWC priorities. TCU didn't fit geographically either, but they were added.

Houston, SMU, and Rice won't even get a look. Basically, there are three contenders.

Thompson says the BCS is the only criteria..I don't think your travel partner thing is even on the agenda..Boise makes sense to me but they have made sense since 1999 (say that real fast 3 times) and no invitation has been forthcoming yet..I am not sure logic plays any role.

nvspuds Wrote:Thompson says the BCS is the only criteria..I don't think your travel partner thing is even on the agenda..Boise makes sense to me but they have made sense since 1999 (say that real fast 3 times) and no invitation has been forthcoming yet..I am not sure logic plays any role.

Boise is way different than they were in 1999. When TCU was added Boise had a 15 million dollar budget and weren't very competitive at most sports. Now Boise is the Wac Director's Cup champion, with a 19 million dollar budget, a new IPF, a whole slate of new doctoral programs and academic plans. It's amazing to see how fast Boise has progressed in just two years.

The BCS is the goal, but maximizing profits is the main goal. If you can cut down on budgetary expenses, add a new bowl game, and increase your conference chances of landing an at-large bid it makes expansion less expensive. In fact it might actually make the conference more money without re-negotiating our t.v. contract.

Like I said, it makes no sense to me. Boise was a big time program when you picked TCU..sometimes there is just no making sense of things..

For instance you always say Nevada has the un-overcomable obstacle of attendance to ever play in the MWC but the Pack has drawn more fans since the split than Wyoming in every year except 02..

Logic never plays much of a role..

nvspuds Wrote:Like I said, it makes no sense to me. Boise was a big time program when you picked TCU..sometimes there is just no making sense of things..

For instance you always say Nevada has the un-overcomable obstacle of attendance to ever play in the MWC but the Pack has drawn more fans since the split than Wyoming in every year except 02..

Logic never plays much of a role..

I don't know what Nevada averaged this year. Wyoming averaged almost 21,000. The difference I see between the two is in post-season attendance. The MWC can't afford to add teams that don't travel to bowl games. Our bowl alignment is shaky enough already. If we add a team that only brings 2000 fans to a bowl game, we could lose certification of that bowl. It's essential that any team we add will attend post-season games. Wyoming brought 13,000 to the Vegas bowl and 5-10 thousand to the basketball tournament every year.

That's the only problem I have with Nevada. That might change with a couple of years of success. I didn't think Nevada's football team was very good a couple of years ago. Now they are. The only questions with Nevada, as far as I'm concerned, are their ability to travel for post-season games and their ability to maintain their current level of success at football. They still have time to fix those problems. If the MWC expands it will only be by one team. It will be at least 5-10 years before the MWC goes to twelve. In that amount of time Nevada might build up a loyal post-season fan base. Who knows?

I would be the first to admit Nevada didn't travel well to honolulu on Christmas Eve..I tried to get a flight and couldn't get one..However, they traveled very well to the Las Vegas Bowls they have been in...

Nevada drew around 20 thousand last year..That has been the average for the last 7 years..Before that they averaged around 27 in the 90's..However, i don't think Wyoming, TCU or New Mexico coming to town would be a very good draw..We have almost no history with any of you.

Like I said..I don't want Nevada in the MWC..I like the schools in the WAC much more and Nevada has played them far more often..I just don't want to throw away all that history to play in the MWC..

In its 100+ year history of palying intercollgieate football the Pack has played current WAc members 153 time. Other than Nevada Southern , there has only been 36 games against MWC schools. None against AFA and only one against the carpetbagging TCU turncoats..

nvspuds Wrote:I would be the first to admit Nevada didn't travel well to honolulu on Christmas Eve..I tried to get a flight and couldn't get one..However, they traveled very well to the Las Vegas Bowls they have been in...

I'm not even sure that is a problem. I don't know a lot of schools that will bring more than 2000 to Hawaii. Still, Nevada is unproven and the MWC can't afford to add them until they know Nevada will attend bowl games. It looks like Nevada will continue to grow though. I'm sure a couple of years of success will fill the seats. We'll see how well Nevada attends the Boise bowl, the New Mexico bowl...If Nevada can bring 10,000 fans to one of those games it puts them up on the list.

I admit, I used to be Nevada's biggest critic. They had a lot of question marks. They're moving forward faster than I expected. There's a lot to like about Nevada. If they can continue to improve their attendance issues and maintain their football success, they have the academics and basketball profile to make you overlook Fresno.

Cowboy Junky Wrote:

nvspuds Wrote:I would be the first to admit Nevada didn't travel well to honolulu on Christmas Eve..I tried to get a flight and couldn't get one..However, they traveled very well to the Las Vegas Bowls they have been in...

I'm not even sure that is a problem. I don't know a lot of schools that will bring more than 2000 to Hawaii. Still, Nevada is unproven and the MWC can't afford to add them until they know Nevada will attend bowl games. It looks like Nevada will continue to grow though. I'm sure a couple of years of success will fill the seats. We'll see how well Nevada attends the Boise bowl, the New Mexico bowl...If Nevada can bring 10,000 fans to one of those games it puts them up on the list.

I admit, I used to be Nevada's biggest critic. They had a lot of question marks. They're moving forward faster than I expected. There's a lot to like about Nevada. If they can continue to improve their attendance issues and maintain their football success, they have the academics and basketball profile to make you overlook Fresno.

Junky, you're droolin' and it stinks. The last thing I want to do is have to swim in your drool. I'm glad to know that many WAC teams are being dreamed of by MWC fans. Keep dreaming, junky, but no droolin'

Don't mistake getting tired of arguing with people for drooling.

I will admit that improving the MWC does create a couple of drops of drool spit. Were right on the doorstep of the BCS. A couple of good decisions might get us inside. Even if we don't get autobid status, I still would like the MWC to be as good as it can be. Adding another team that regularly makes a push for the at-large bid is an exciting idea. Imagine if there was an expansion candidate for the Wac that you could add that would immediately contend for the title.

Utep will always be my favorite CUSA team. Boise will always be my favorite Wac team. I felt sick to the stomach when Fresno lost that game to USC. I really wanted them to win. That's not going to change. I'm always going to cheer for the Wac.