(03-24-2019 05:44 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(03-24-2019 05:37 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(03-24-2019 05:21 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(03-24-2019 04:50 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  No it won’t destabilize the MW.
1. We don’t know how much the new TV deal for the MW will be in a month or so.
2. Unlike the AAC, the MW is made of flagship and land grant colleges. They are the first or second college in their states the population pays attention to.
As the population grows so will the MW.

First off, I don't think there's anything the AAC has done or is doing that would destabilize the MWC. As others have said, the geography largely ensures there's little to no chance schools in one would see much appeal in switching to the other. Furthermore, the AAC just signed their new deal - why do any of us think that ESPN is interested in paying an additional ~$7MM/year/team to add any MWC schools to the AAC?

But I think you're WAY overselling the notion that somehow the MWC is going benefit from population growth while the AAC won't. Here are the states that have grown the most since the last census:

#1 - Texas (+3,555,740)
#2 - Florida (+2,494,702)
#3 - California (+2,304,150)

These are the only states to have grown by more than a million people in that time span. 4/12 of the AAC are in those states compared to 3/12 of the MWC (all in California, and none of which are land grant universities nor in the top 6 of options for students from California). Furthermore,

#4 - North Carolina (+847,928)



#8 - Colorado (+666,240)

you have to go down a ways before you hit another state in the MWC. And in case you didn't realize, the enrollments at USF, UCF and Houston are all going up quite a bit, not to mention that the AAC has teams in the #4, #5, #7, #11 and #18 media markets. So I think we can dispense with the notion that somehow population growth in states like Nevada (+333,701), Idaho (+186,556) or Wyoming (+13,970) are going to have a serious impact.

USFFan

MWC schools are for the most part flagship/land grant institutions which means they are the first or second voice for students not the 5th or 6th one. Even the ones that are not flagships like Fresno State, Boise State, San Diego State and UNLV (that’ll change next year) are the only game in town and get media attention in their markets.

States like Texas and Florida are growing but how many of those transplants automatically become North Texas, Houston, USF or FAU fans? Not that many. In the long term their offspring might attend those schools but the problem is the younger generation is not into college sports the way previous generations were.

Great - congratulations on being in the top 2 options in states like Idaho, Wyoming, New Mexico and Hawaii. Even if 1% of those 3 million+ people who moved to Texas in the last 8 years became Houston or SMU fans, that's still more than if 100% of the people who moved to Wyoming or New Mexico did. And if none of the "younger generation" are into college sports, then doesn't that defeat the purpose of the whole "growing population" argument? Or are you somehow thinking that the retirees moving in are going to adopt the local team. As somebody who lives in Florida and sees Rays games dominated by Yankees and Red Sox fans, they're not.

USFFan

You left two of the fastest growing states, Nevada and Colorado. Very convenient.

Let me see, if I’m from Michigan and graduated from MSU and I move to Albuquerque which doesn’t offer any pro sports and it’s far from P5 schools, I might somehow follow the Lobos since it’s the only game in town. But if I move to Dallas, I have way too many options for entertainment not to mention if I want P5 football, TCU is in the same metro area and Austin, College Station and Norman are 3 hours away. Apples to oranges.

(03-24-2019 05:49 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(03-24-2019 05:31 PM)usffan Wrote:  If we're being completely honest, the only school that I could see at least contemplate a move would be BYU, mostly because it would put them back into play for the "highest rated champion of a G5 conference" NY6 bid (unless Holmoe is a DavidSt disciple who refuses to recognize that BYU isn't eligible for that slot). I don't think any MWC school would be interested in being a full AAC member because of the travel costs, and I also don't see them willing to find another conference to park their other sports.

USFFan

PS - I also know that many BYU fans embrace their independent status, even though it doesn't provide them with great bowl access...

The only reason they “embrace” it is because they have to pretend they have a good P5 lineup on their schedule. They’ll keep the charade as long as they can because their biggest rival is in the Pac-12 which even on a mediocre season, they can still go to the Sun or Holiday bowls. It’s the reason they won’t humiliate themselves to go back to the MWC or even consider the AAC.

If you’re a BYU fan and your best friend is a Utah fan, what would you rather say?

“We have Cincinnati, UCF, Tulsa, Memphis, Temple, SMU, and UConn on the schedule” or

“We have Wisconsin, Texas, Tennessee, Washington, USC on the schedule”

BYU has schedules for many years to come that are easily better than they would have in the MWC or AAC

https://fbschedules.com/ncaa/byu/

(03-24-2019 05:57 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(03-24-2019 05:44 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(03-24-2019 05:37 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(03-24-2019 05:21 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(03-24-2019 04:50 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  No it won’t destabilize the MW.
1. We don’t know how much the new TV deal for the MW will be in a month or so.
2. Unlike the AAC, the MW is made of flagship and land grant colleges. They are the first or second college in their states the population pays attention to.
As the population grows so will the MW.

First off, I don't think there's anything the AAC has done or is doing that would destabilize the MWC. As others have said, the geography largely ensures there's little to no chance schools in one would see much appeal in switching to the other. Furthermore, the AAC just signed their new deal - why do any of us think that ESPN is interested in paying an additional ~$7MM/year/team to add any MWC schools to the AAC?

But I think you're WAY overselling the notion that somehow the MWC is going benefit from population growth while the AAC won't. Here are the states that have grown the most since the last census:

#1 - Texas (+3,555,740)
#2 - Florida (+2,494,702)
#3 - California (+2,304,150)

These are the only states to have grown by more than a million people in that time span. 4/12 of the AAC are in those states compared to 3/12 of the MWC (all in California, and none of which are land grant universities nor in the top 6 of options for students from California). Furthermore,

#4 - North Carolina (+847,928)



#8 - Colorado (+666,240)

you have to go down a ways before you hit another state in the MWC. And in case you didn't realize, the enrollments at USF, UCF and Houston are all going up quite a bit, not to mention that the AAC has teams in the #4, #5, #7, #11 and #18 media markets. So I think we can dispense with the notion that somehow population growth in states like Nevada (+333,701), Idaho (+186,556) or Wyoming (+13,970) are going to have a serious impact.

USFFan

MWC schools are for the most part flagship/land grant institutions which means they are the first or second voice for students not the 5th or 6th one. Even the ones that are not flagships like Fresno State, Boise State, San Diego State and UNLV (that’ll change next year) are the only game in town and get media attention in their markets.

States like Texas and Florida are growing but how many of those transplants automatically become North Texas, Houston, USF or FAU fans? Not that many. In the long term their offspring might attend those schools but the problem is the younger generation is not into college sports the way previous generations were.

Great - congratulations on being in the top 2 options in states like Idaho, Wyoming, New Mexico and Hawaii. Even if 1% of those 3 million+ people who moved to Texas in the last 8 years became Houston or SMU fans, that's still more than if 100% of the people who moved to Wyoming or New Mexico did. And if none of the "younger generation" are into college sports, then doesn't that defeat the purpose of the whole "growing population" argument? Or are you somehow thinking that the retirees moving in are going to adopt the local team. As somebody who lives in Florida and sees Rays games dominated by Yankees and Red Sox fans, they're not.

USFFan

You left two of the fastest growing states, Nevada and Colorado. Very convenient.

Let me see, if I’m from Michigan and graduated from MSU and I move to Albuquerque which doesn’t offer any pro sports and it’s far from P5 schools, I might somehow follow the Lobos since it’s the only game in town. But if I move to Dallas, I have way too many options for entertainment not to mention if I want P5 football, TCU is in the same metro area and Austin, College Station and Norman are 3 hours away. Apples to oranges.

You do like to pick and choose things to try to make a point. Colorado (which I included in my original post about this) has grown by the 8th most since the last census (+666,240). But they're also home to the Broncos, Rockies, Nuggets and Avalanche. If you're going to use moving to an area with pro teams as a knock on Dallas, it's just as big of a knock on Colorado. Nevada also grew by 333,701 in the last near-decade. They also have the Golden Knights and (soon) the Raiders. Plus, have you ever been to either Vegas or Reno? The sports fans are in the sports books rooting for their own teams (or, in reality, on whoever they've bet on).

In reality, IF population growth improves things, the difference between the improvement seen by MWC schools and AAC schools will not somehow dramatically favor the MWC.

USFFan

(03-24-2019 05:11 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(03-24-2019 05:03 PM)XLance Wrote:  The AAC will be able to pick up a few schools from the remnants of the Big 12, they won't need to go any further west.

Big 12 exit fees mean the Big 12 will stay intact and add schools IF (and a pretty big IF) any teams leave the Big 12

Big 12 exit fees expire when the GOR expires in 2025.
Ironically Bowlsby's contract expires the same day the GORs do.

https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...r-contract

(03-24-2019 06:07 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-24-2019 05:11 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(03-24-2019 05:03 PM)XLance Wrote:  The AAC will be able to pick up a few schools from the remnants of the Big 12, they won't need to go any further west.

Big 12 exit fees mean the Big 12 will stay intact and add schools IF (and a pretty big IF) any teams leave the Big 12

Big 12 exit fees expire when the GOR expires in 2025.
Ironically Bowlsby's contract expires the same day the GORs do.

https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...r-contract

TodgeRodge discussing the 99 year contract in



USFFan

(03-24-2019 06:07 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-24-2019 05:11 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(03-24-2019 05:03 PM)XLance Wrote:  The AAC will be able to pick up a few schools from the remnants of the Big 12, they won't need to go any further west.

Big 12 exit fees mean the Big 12 will stay intact and add schools IF (and a pretty big IF) any teams leave the Big 12

Big 12 exit fees expire when the GOR expires in 2025.
Ironically Bowlsby's contract expires the same day the GORs do.

https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...r-contract

this is incorrect

the GOR does not have exit fees associated with it and that is by design

the exit fees for the Big 12 are in the 99 year contract for conference membership signed in 2012

http://www.big12sports.com/fls/10410/pdf...Bylaws.pdf

(03-24-2019 06:19 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(03-24-2019 06:07 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-24-2019 05:11 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(03-24-2019 05:03 PM)XLance Wrote:  The AAC will be able to pick up a few schools from the remnants of the Big 12, they won't need to go any further west.

Big 12 exit fees mean the Big 12 will stay intact and add schools IF (and a pretty big IF) any teams leave the Big 12

Big 12 exit fees expire when the GOR expires in 2025.
Ironically Bowlsby's contract expires the same day the GORs do.

https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...r-contract

TodgeRodge discussing the 99 year contract in



USFFan

USF fan showing ignorance incoming ^^^

enjoy that $7 million for 12 years!

(03-24-2019 06:35 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(03-24-2019 06:07 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-24-2019 05:11 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(03-24-2019 05:03 PM)XLance Wrote:  The AAC will be able to pick up a few schools from the remnants of the Big 12, they won't need to go any further west.

Big 12 exit fees mean the Big 12 will stay intact and add schools IF (and a pretty big IF) any teams leave the Big 12

Big 12 exit fees expire when the GOR expires in 2025.
Ironically Bowlsby's contract expires the same day the GORs do.

https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...r-contract

this is incorrect

the GOR does not have exit fees associated with it and that is by design

the exit fees for the Big 12 are in the 99 year contract for conference membership signed in 2012

http://www.big12sports.com/fls/10410/pdf...Bylaws.pdf

USFFan

I'd be curious if there is a pro rata clause in that conference that could be triggered if the right schools came in. I think a lot of AAC folks would love to get ahold of BYU and AFA.

(03-24-2019 07:59 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I'd be curious if there is a pro rata clause in that conference that could be triggered if the right schools came in. I think a lot of AAC folks would love to get ahold of BYU and AFA.

Same pay? No we like the eastern exposure.

Smu did the WAC and had fun but time slots were awful.

(03-24-2019 05:03 PM)XLance Wrote:  The AAC will be able to pick up a few schools from the remnants of the Big 12, they won't need to go any further west.

No, the XII remnants will take whomever they want from the AAC and MWC and those schools will gladly leave behind the lower level brethren. Thats why the AAC took from the CUSA and not the other way around.

(03-24-2019 05:31 PM)usffan Wrote:  If we're being completely honest, the only school that I could see at least contemplate a move would be BYU, mostly because it would put them back into play for the "highest rated champion of a G5 conference" NY6 bid (unless Holmoe is a DavidSt disciple who refuses to recognize that BYU isn't eligible for that slot). I don't think any MWC school would be interested in being a full AAC member because of the travel costs, and I also don't see them willing to find another conference to park their other sports.

USFFan

PS - I also know that many BYU fans embrace their independent status, even though it doesn't provide them with great bowl access...

The pay may have gone up enough to make the AAC acceptable to BYU as a fb only member. I could see ESPN going for it if Army was willing to do it also.

(03-24-2019 08:04 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(03-24-2019 05:03 PM)XLance Wrote:  The AAC will be able to pick up a few schools from the remnants of the Big 12, they won't need to go any further west.

No, the XII remnants will take whomever they want from the AAC and MWC and those schools will gladly leave behind the lower level brethren. Thats why the AAC took from the CUSA and not the other way around.

AAC fans have to keep up the totally false narrative that they would pick up Big 12 teams because it lets them all relax a little that their program might not be left in the AAC after the AAC is raided

it also makes them feel like they could talk trash to Big 12 schools and push them around as new conference members that had to come begging to the AAC to let them in

and it helps them pretend that they would be different than CUSA was in the past and that fake P6

of course it ignores the reality of the Big 12 contracts and that Texas and OU are not simply adding value to 8 others to such an extent that the Big 12 gets 14+ million more per year from the media partners over the AAC

even if AAC teams thought they could say no to the remaining Big 12 and wait them out the Big 12 would simply start adding CSU and maybe a couple of others and then the remaining AAC members would panic and start calling the Big 12 ASAP

(03-24-2019 08:01 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(03-24-2019 07:59 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I'd be curious if there is a pro rata clause in that conference that could be triggered if the right schools came in. I think a lot of AAC folks would love to get ahold of BYU and AFA.

Same pay? No we like the eastern exposure.

Smu did the WAC and had fun but time slots were awful.

PRO RATA CLAUSE. By definition that means the schools' payouts won't be reduced and that the new guys will get the same amount as the existing schools.

It would not mean a huge change for SMU--one game per year In Either the state of CO or UT. Not the 2-3 they had during the WAC days.

(03-24-2019 08:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-24-2019 05:31 PM)usffan Wrote:  If we're being completely honest, the only school that I could see at least contemplate a move would be BYU, mostly because it would put them back into play for the "highest rated champion of a G5 conference" NY6 bid (unless Holmoe is a DavidSt disciple who refuses to recognize that BYU isn't eligible for that slot). I don't think any MWC school would be interested in being a full AAC member because of the travel costs, and I also don't see them willing to find another conference to park their other sports.

USFFan

PS - I also know that many BYU fans embrace their independent status, even though it doesn't provide them with great bowl access...

The pay may have gone up enough to make the AAC acceptable to BYU as a fb only member. I could see ESPN going for it if Army was willing to do it also.

BYU would need to figure out what to do with all of their existing games they have scheduled if they joined the AAC. With all the P5 schools the Cougars have coming to Provo it'll be interesting to see what their rights go for.

The math doesn't work. To get the existing 12 AAC teams a $1 million increase a new team would have to be worth $20 million/year. (13 teams at $8 million/year). There is no MW team that fits that category.

It isn't worth expanding for $1 million. $2-3 million would be more desirable.

(03-24-2019 06:05 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(03-24-2019 05:57 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(03-24-2019 05:44 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(03-24-2019 05:37 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(03-24-2019 05:21 PM)usffan Wrote:  First off, I don't think there's anything the AAC has done or is doing that would destabilize the MWC. As others have said, the geography largely ensures there's little to no chance schools in one would see much appeal in switching to the other. Furthermore, the AAC just signed their new deal - why do any of us think that ESPN is interested in paying an additional ~$7MM/year/team to add any MWC schools to the AAC?

But I think you're WAY overselling the notion that somehow the MWC is going benefit from population growth while the AAC won't. Here are the states that have grown the most since the last census:

#1 - Texas (+3,555,740)
#2 - Florida (+2,494,702)
#3 - California (+2,304,150)

These are the only states to have grown by more than a million people in that time span. 4/12 of the AAC are in those states compared to 3/12 of the MWC (all in California, and none of which are land grant universities nor in the top 6 of options for students from California). Furthermore,

#4 - North Carolina (+847,928)



#8 - Colorado (+666,240)

you have to go down a ways before you hit another state in the MWC. And in case you didn't realize, the enrollments at USF, UCF and Houston are all going up quite a bit, not to mention that the AAC has teams in the #4, #5, #7, #11 and #18 media markets. So I think we can dispense with the notion that somehow population growth in states like Nevada (+333,701), Idaho (+186,556) or Wyoming (+13,970) are going to have a serious impact.

USFFan

MWC schools are for the most part flagship/land grant institutions which means they are the first or second voice for students not the 5th or 6th one. Even the ones that are not flagships like Fresno State, Boise State, San Diego State and UNLV (that’ll change next year) are the only game in town and get media attention in their markets.

States like Texas and Florida are growing but how many of those transplants automatically become North Texas, Houston, USF or FAU fans? Not that many. In the long term their offspring might attend those schools but the problem is the younger generation is not into college sports the way previous generations were.

Great - congratulations on being in the top 2 options in states like Idaho, Wyoming, New Mexico and Hawaii. Even if 1% of those 3 million+ people who moved to Texas in the last 8 years became Houston or SMU fans, that's still more than if 100% of the people who moved to Wyoming or New Mexico did. And if none of the "younger generation" are into college sports, then doesn't that defeat the purpose of the whole "growing population" argument? Or are you somehow thinking that the retirees moving in are going to adopt the local team. As somebody who lives in Florida and sees Rays games dominated by Yankees and Red Sox fans, they're not.

USFFan

You left two of the fastest growing states, Nevada and Colorado. Very convenient.

Let me see, if I’m from Michigan and graduated from MSU and I move to Albuquerque which doesn’t offer any pro sports and it’s far from P5 schools, I might somehow follow the Lobos since it’s the only game in town. But if I move to Dallas, I have way too many options for entertainment not to mention if I want P5 football, TCU is in the same metro area and Austin, College Station and Norman are 3 hours away. Apples to oranges.

You do like to pick and choose things to try to make a point. Colorado (which I included in my original post about this) has grown by the 8th most since the last census (+666,240). But they're also home to the Broncos, Rockies, Nuggets and Avalanche. If you're going to use moving to an area with pro teams as a knock on Dallas, it's just as big of a knock on Colorado. Nevada also grew by 333,701 in the last near-decade. They also have the Golden Knights and (soon) the Raiders. Plus, have you ever been to either Vegas or Reno? The sports fans are in the sports books rooting for their own teams (or, in reality, on whoever they've bet on).

In reality, IF population growth improves things, the difference between the improvement seen by MWC schools and AAC schools will not somehow dramatically favor the MWC.

USFFan

You’re still didn’t answer my question. I’ll make it simpler. What type of school would have a better chance to capture a transplant? One where it’s the only game in town or one where it competes with multiple entertainment options? The MWC has multiple schools that fit the profile on the former. The AAC has more that fit the latter.

American doesn’t need to waster down their conference any further. At a good number with 12. If BYU would join then go to 14 with CSU and that’s about it.

(03-24-2019 09:31 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(03-24-2019 06:05 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(03-24-2019 05:57 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(03-24-2019 05:44 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(03-24-2019 05:37 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  MWC schools are for the most part flagship/land grant institutions which means they are the first or second voice for students not the 5th or 6th one. Even the ones that are not flagships like Fresno State, Boise State, San Diego State and UNLV (that’ll change next year) are the only game in town and get media attention in their markets.

States like Texas and Florida are growing but how many of those transplants automatically become North Texas, Houston, USF or FAU fans? Not that many. In the long term their offspring might attend those schools but the problem is the younger generation is not into college sports the way previous generations were.

Great - congratulations on being in the top 2 options in states like Idaho, Wyoming, New Mexico and Hawaii. Even if 1% of those 3 million+ people who moved to Texas in the last 8 years became Houston or SMU fans, that's still more than if 100% of the people who moved to Wyoming or New Mexico did. And if none of the "younger generation" are into college sports, then doesn't that defeat the purpose of the whole "growing population" argument? Or are you somehow thinking that the retirees moving in are going to adopt the local team. As somebody who lives in Florida and sees Rays games dominated by Yankees and Red Sox fans, they're not.

USFFan

You left two of the fastest growing states, Nevada and Colorado. Very convenient.

Let me see, if I’m from Michigan and graduated from MSU and I move to Albuquerque which doesn’t offer any pro sports and it’s far from P5 schools, I might somehow follow the Lobos since it’s the only game in town. But if I move to Dallas, I have way too many options for entertainment not to mention if I want P5 football, TCU is in the same metro area and Austin, College Station and Norman are 3 hours away. Apples to oranges.

You do like to pick and choose things to try to make a point. Colorado (which I included in my original post about this) has grown by the 8th most since the last census (+666,240). But they're also home to the Broncos, Rockies, Nuggets and Avalanche. If you're going to use moving to an area with pro teams as a knock on Dallas, it's just as big of a knock on Colorado. Nevada also grew by 333,701 in the last near-decade. They also have the Golden Knights and (soon) the Raiders. Plus, have you ever been to either Vegas or Reno? The sports fans are in the sports books rooting for their own teams (or, in reality, on whoever they've bet on).

In reality, IF population growth improves things, the difference between the improvement seen by MWC schools and AAC schools will not somehow dramatically favor the MWC.

USFFan

You’re still didn’t answer my question. I’ll make it simpler. What type of school would have a better chance to capture a transplant? One where it’s the only game in town or one where it competes with multiple entertainment options? The MWC has multiple schools that fit the profile on the former. The AAC has more that fit the latter.

Only game in town in Laramie or Reno won't even sell out a high school football game.

I'd rather take a town that doesn't have a lot of transplants, like Memphis or Cincinnati or Chicago. Sure the college isn't the only game in town, but everyone will root for the school when they're doing well. The bandwagon transforms 9 million people into Loyola fans and it makes Cincinnati fans outnumber Florida fans 2 to 1 at the Sugar Bowl.

(03-24-2019 07:59 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I'd be curious if there is a pro rata clause in that conference that could be triggered if the right schools came in. I think a lot of AAC folks would love to get ahold of BYU and AFA.

Id be shocked if ESPN ever included a pro rata clause in any contract ever again.