A Star-Tribune article discusses the new changes in the NCAA governance and their affect on the MW. Wyoming AD Tom Burman doesn't not think most of the MW will be able to pay for full cost of attendance. A Fresno Bee columnist echos very similar concerns in a column on the exact same day. Taken on the heels of Boise president Bob Kustra's editorial last week, I get the impression that the MW schools are VERY uneasy about the ability of their conference to handle the changes.


This means that the great divide between the largest, wealthiest conferences and everyone else will be wider than ever. What school would a football recruit rather go to -- the small conference university near his house that can only cover his room and board, or the larger one that's offering to pay him an additional $6,000 per year?

That's the question, and it's a loaded one. This divide wouldn't only occur between the "BCS conferences" and the "mid majors," either. Within the Mountain West Conference, some schools would be willing and able to adopt these changes, while others simply could not bear it financially.

If the Mountain West once represented a more even playing field, it will soon be littered with ridges and valleys. Recruiting advantages will be easily defined, and measured by available dollars.


http://trib.com/sports/college/wyoming/w...190c0.html

Fresno seems to fear the same things.

http://insurancenewsnet.com/oarticle/201...4ObLHVOW71

MWC members are feeling the pressure and it hasn't even begun yet... I see the AAC approaching those 4 from the MWC who can swim and make the AAC a 16 member conference.

Will see who is willing to match the P5. I'm going to say that less than 20 G5 schools will do so.

Lower tier schools in expensive cities are going to have to dig deep to keep up. There may be some advantage to being in a "small" market where expenses are less.

(05-26-2014 05:04 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  MWC members are feeling the pressure and it hasn't even begun yet... I see the AAC approaching those 4 from the MWC who can swim and make the AAC a 16 member conference.

If it could lead to better TV payout for all 16? fine. Otherwise...no thanks.

(05-26-2014 05:33 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Lower tier schools in expensive cities are going to have to dig deep to keep up. There may be some advantage to being in a "small" market where expenses are less.

Bingo! This could be a deathblow to a school like SJSU. They've got Sunbelt level resources (67% subsidized already) in one of the most expensive places to live in the country..... and their legitimate students are fed up.

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/San...27111.html

The love of money, man.

I hate that this disgusting money grab keeps evolving. I want these smaller schools to have the chance to compete at the highest levels of competition possible. But these university presidents and conference commissioners only care about the dollar signs, when it's all said and done...

We will be @ 16 in the next two years.

I think they will all be historically strong basketball schools and Air Force.

New Mexico, UNLV, San Diego State would be the best fit in my opinion.

I've felt that news such as this would come sooner rather than later. Like a poster above stated, there are probably only about 20 G5 schools that are willing to make these investments. We'll see some more expansion along the way, probably taking place between the AAC and the MWC.

If I were to guess, the AAC will absorb up to 8 MWC teams. I have no idea who will choose to "drop down" but at first glance, SJSU, Utah State, Wyoming and Hawaii or even Nevada come to mind. It's also possible that one or two current AAC schools choose not to participate in this new structure.

I think that schools such as Boise State, UNLV, Fresno State and SDSU have the means to come along for the ride. The same can be said of CSU, New Mexico and Air Force. If (and it's a big "if") we could land these schools, along with the possibility of BYU, we would be in good shape going forward.

(05-26-2014 05:24 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  Will see who is willing to match the P5. I'm going to say that less than 20 G5 schools will do so.

When is the full cost of expense of student athlete in effect for p5?

I thought the matching of permissive legislation is on conference level?

I am really hoping to see this. Maybe it is at the cost of pure amateurism.

(05-26-2014 06:27 PM)Ned Low Wrote:  I've felt that news such as this would come sooner rather than later. Like a poster above stated, there are probably only about 20 G5 schools that are willing to make these investments. We'll see some more expansion along the way, probably taking place between the AAC and the MWC.

If I were to guess, the AAC will absorb up to 8 MWC teams. I have no idea who will choose to "drop down" but at first glance, SJSU, Utah State, Wyoming and Hawaii or even Nevada come to mind. It's also possible that one or two current AAC schools choose not to participate in this new structure.

I think that schools such as Boise State, UNLV, Fresno State and SDSU have the means to come along for the ride. The same can be said of CSU, New Mexico and Air Force. If (and it's a big "if") we could land these schools, along with the possibility of BYU, we would be in good shape going forward.

Where is that coming from? Why do we even need MWC schools. Boise burned the bridge. SDSU needs a regional partner. BYU doesn't want to come.

(05-26-2014 06:27 PM)Ned Low Wrote:  I've felt that news such as this would come sooner rather than later. Like a poster above stated, there are probably only about 20 G5 schools that are willing to make these investments. We'll see some more expansion along the way, probably taking place between the AAC and the MWC.

If I were to guess, the AAC will absorb up to 8 MWC teams. I have no idea who will choose to "drop down" but at first glance, SJSU, Utah State, Wyoming and Hawaii or even Nevada come to mind. It's also possible that one or two current AAC schools choose not to participate in this new structure.

I think that schools such as Boise State, UNLV, Fresno State and SDSU have the means to come along for the ride. The same can be said of CSU, New Mexico and Air Force. If (and it's a big "if") we could land these schools, along with the possibility of BYU, we would be in good shape going forward.

I doubt more then 4 MWC members are capable to the full attendance costs.

In the AAC, no one will "Drop-Down"... B/c exit fees $$$ the AAC currently has will be enough to support/match it.

Gonna be interesting next few days.

(05-26-2014 06:51 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 06:27 PM)Ned Low Wrote:  I've felt that news such as this would come sooner rather than later. Like a poster above stated, there are probably only about 20 G5 schools that are willing to make these investments. We'll see some more expansion along the way, probably taking place between the AAC and the MWC.

If I were to guess, the AAC will absorb up to 8 MWC teams. I have no idea who will choose to "drop down" but at first glance, SJSU, Utah State, Wyoming and Hawaii or even Nevada come to mind. It's also possible that one or two current AAC schools choose not to participate in this new structure.

I think that schools such as Boise State, UNLV, Fresno State and SDSU have the means to come along for the ride. The same can be said of CSU, New Mexico and Air Force. If (and it's a big "if") we could land these schools, along with the possibility of BYU, we would be in good shape going forward.

I doubt more then 4 MWC members are capable to the full attendance costs.

In the AAC, no one will "Drop-Down"... B/c exit fees $$$ the AAC currently has will be enough to support/match it.

Gonna be interesting next few days.

Next few days? What is the timetable?

When is full cost of attendance in full effect?

No there is no getting any MW teams. There will be and already are recruiting advantages even within the P5 conferences. It'll be no different than it is right now. While there may be some advantage, it really isn't going to be any different than it is right now within the G5. Most athletes, I believe will want to know how much playing time they are going to get and they are many athlete that'll chose be able to play in the game rather than taking a stipend and not getting any playing time. Not to mention, a lot athletes chose a school based on the relationship with the coaches...not $$$.

voting takes place in August.......any changes would take effect in January

(05-26-2014 06:51 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 06:27 PM)Ned Low Wrote:  I've felt that news such as this would come sooner rather than later. Like a poster above stated, there are probably only about 20 G5 schools that are willing to make these investments. We'll see some more expansion along the way, probably taking place between the AAC and the MWC.

If I were to guess, the AAC will absorb up to 8 MWC teams. I have no idea who will choose to "drop down" but at first glance, SJSU, Utah State, Wyoming and Hawaii or even Nevada come to mind. It's also possible that one or two current AAC schools choose not to participate in this new structure.

I think that schools such as Boise State, UNLV, Fresno State and SDSU have the means to come along for the ride. The same can be said of CSU, New Mexico and Air Force. If (and it's a big "if") we could land these schools, along with the possibility of BYU, we would be in good shape going forward.

I doubt more then 4 MWC members are capable to the full attendance costs.

In the AAC, no one will "Drop-Down"... B/c exit fees $$$ the AAC currently has will be enough to support/match it.

Gonna be interesting next few days.

I'm wondering if Tulane and Tulsa were taken because they issued guarantees to the AAC. Tulane and Tulsa are normally very tight when it comes to athletic spending, but the fact that they're both suddenly spending over a million a year on coaches as well as dumping $100M into facilities tells you something.

Tulane and Tulsa are likely going for broke here - they have enough (in athletic funds) to JUST make it. They're probably hoping that they survive - and are able to build into something similar in stature to a Wake Forest or Washington St. (in terms of program size/relevance). It's a gamble, that's for sure... ...at least they're trying.

The timetable is this :

August 2014 - new governance structure is voted upon and approved.
Existing leadership structure remains until...
January 2015 - new governance structure takes effect and new rules, including those under the P5 autonomy start taking place. New rules will largely not be in effect until...
August 2015 - new rules in effect and governance structure in full swing.

(05-26-2014 05:04 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  MWC members are feeling the pressure and it hasn't even begun yet... I see the AAC approaching those 4 from the MWC who can swim and make the AAC a 16 member conference.

So the theory here is that everyone in the AAC can 'pay' up and will? If you take a look at athletic budgets of some AAC schools the answer may not be that clear.

(05-26-2014 07:24 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  No there is no getting any MW teams. There will be and already are recruiting advantages even within the P5 conferences. It'll be no different than it is right now. While there may be some advantage, it really isn't going to be any different than it is right now within the G5. Most athletes, I believe will want to know how much playing time they are going to get and they are many athlete that'll chose be able to play in the game rather than taking a stipend and not getting any playing time. Not to mention, a lot athletes chose a school based on the relationship with the coaches...not $$$.

Keep thinking that. If the number is $6k per year the 5 year is $30k. Good luck telling someone poor to walk away from 30k.

(05-26-2014 07:25 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Tulane and Tulsa are likely going for broke here - they have enough (in athletic funds) to JUST make it. They're probably hoping that they survive - and are able to build into something similar in stature to a Wake Forest or Washington St. (in terms of program size/relevance). It's a gamble, that's for sure... ...at least they're trying.

"Just make it?" Please. Tulane is tight because we want to be tight and there wasn't much to gain. As it is, we were NEVER cheap as to how we wanted our conference to operate: we never worried about travel costs or tried to change C-USA into a "regional league" like some nimrods over there sought (and got). We wanted the opposite.
And now situation has changed. We certainly have the resources to spend, the returns are there, and hopefully we will do what it takes. Because we can and should.