(01-21-2020 04:43 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(01-21-2020 12:01 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(01-20-2020 11:27 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(01-20-2020 07:28 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  MWC would probably stay at 11 but if they had to add one it might make sense to go after UTEP, NMSU or one of the Texas triangle teams in CUSA or the Sun Belt.

Texas State might be the easiest Texas triangle team to pull as the others basically play each other every year in all sports.

UTEP however would have mutual history on their side.

Don't you think the MWC would have its pick of the CUSA litter under the new TV arrangement?

Rice I could see as a target with their Houston media market.

TV differential isn’t going to dwarf travel cost so it’s gotta have a bigger pull than just tv dollars.

Back when TCU joined it was because of BCS concerns that helped them justify the move. What’s the specific hook for Rice, UNT, or UTSA? How does it promote their brands better than status quo which features regional foes and a better fit for non-fb?

Also how much each of them draw in their respective markets is pretty minimal imo

MWC is 3.5 million more plus it has better academics.

There is no question at this point because its not like the travel costs are that great in CUSA for anyone.

MWC would make more but between travel cost (possibly over 1M more), exit fees, and no nearby schools I can see a situation in which the CUSA Texas triangle schools stay put. Why travel west all the time if the net result is only slightly more and you currently share a division with two close by Texas schools, La Tech, and So Miss?

(01-20-2020 11:27 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  Don't you think the MWC would have its pick of the CUSA litter under the new TV arrangement?

Rice I could see as a target with their Houston media market.

Both CUSA and the SBC have a few schools worth looking at here.


Something that needs to be discussed is the idea of the front range schools bolting to make a new Mountain/Central Time Zone conference with a handful of schools from CUSA/SBC.


Just spitballing here......


Wyoming/Colorado State
Air Force/New Mexico
UTEP/North Texas


UTSA/Texas State
Rice/Louisiana
Louisiana Tech/Arkansas State

(01-21-2020 12:12 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(01-21-2020 04:43 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(01-21-2020 12:01 AM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(01-20-2020 11:27 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(01-20-2020 07:28 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  MWC would probably stay at 11 but if they had to add one it might make sense to go after UTEP, NMSU or one of the Texas triangle teams in CUSA or the Sun Belt.

Texas State might be the easiest Texas triangle team to pull as the others basically play each other every year in all sports.

UTEP however would have mutual history on their side.

Don't you think the MWC would have its pick of the CUSA litter under the new TV arrangement?

Rice I could see as a target with their Houston media market.

TV differential isn’t going to dwarf travel cost so it’s gotta have a bigger pull than just tv dollars.

Back when TCU joined it was because of BCS concerns that helped them justify the move. What’s the specific hook for Rice, UNT, or UTSA? How does it promote their brands better than status quo which features regional foes and a better fit for non-fb?

Also how much each of them draw in their respective markets is pretty minimal imo

MWC is 3.5 million more plus it has better academics.

There is no question at this point because its not like the travel costs are that great in CUSA for anyone.

MWC would make more but between travel cost (possibly over 1M more), exit fees, and no nearby schools I can see a situation in which the CUSA Texas triangle schools stay put. Why travel west all the time if the net result is only slightly more and you currently share a division with two close by Texas schools, La Tech, and So Miss?

You answered your own questions. And La Tech and USM are the most attractive schools in CUSA. CUSA is Sun Belt with another name. They would definitely go to the MWC as long as the buy-in wasn't too high.

(01-21-2020 10:35 AM)Yosef Himself Wrote:  

(01-21-2020 10:30 AM)Aztec Since 88 Wrote:  It is my understanding based upon comments from Lobo fans that NM does not want NMSU in the same conference.

I'm sure they don't. It's not like they don't schedule yearly games with them in every sport. They'd lose an automatic OOC game in every sport. But I think the two: UTEP and NMSU would have enough votes from everyone else.

NMSU would win either way, if they're the choice to replace UTEP in CUSA.

(01-20-2020 05:07 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  UTEP might be a decent add if they dropped football.

And this just flowed right from your mind, to the keyboard, and onto this message board. Amazing.

(01-21-2020 05:48 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-21-2020 10:35 AM)Yosef Himself Wrote:  

(01-21-2020 10:30 AM)Aztec Since 88 Wrote:  It is my understanding based upon comments from Lobo fans that NM does not want NMSU in the same conference.

I'm sure they don't. It's not like they don't schedule yearly games with them in every sport. They'd lose an automatic OOC game in every sport. But I think the two: UTEP and NMSU would have enough votes from everyone else.

NMSU would win either way, if they're the choice to replace UTEP in CUSA.

I don’t think so. I think CUSA who choose Texas St rather than NMSU and Texas St would be making a strong pitch to join their Texas brothers in CUSA West.

I think the best strategic move for the AAC would be to take 3 teams: Boise, SDSU, and Air Force. Navy being able to play both San Diego and Air Force as a conference game would be a big win for them. Eliminating competition while locking up good teams with good fanbases would be big for the AAC. Taking BSU would also give AFA and SDSU lots of motivation to move. Similarly, if they could pull away Air Force the other two would also be more likely to move.


It seems to me that the best strategy for G5 conferences are to get the best football teams they can get from anywhere, then have olympic sports in local conferences to lower costs. Getting the 3 MWC teams as football only would be a huge move for the AAC, and set them apart from the rest for years.

(01-21-2020 05:56 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-21-2020 05:48 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-21-2020 10:35 AM)Yosef Himself Wrote:  

(01-21-2020 10:30 AM)Aztec Since 88 Wrote:  It is my understanding based upon comments from Lobo fans that NM does not want NMSU in the same conference.

I'm sure they don't. It's not like they don't schedule yearly games with them in every sport. They'd lose an automatic OOC game in every sport. But I think the two: UTEP and NMSU would have enough votes from everyone else.

NMSU would win either way, if they're the choice to replace UTEP in CUSA.

I don’t think so. I think CUSA who choose Texas St rather than NMSU and Texas St would be making a strong pitch to join their Texas brothers in CUSA West.

Even if that's what happens -- who would then replace Texas State in the Sun Belt?

(01-24-2020 03:15 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-21-2020 05:56 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-21-2020 05:48 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-21-2020 10:35 AM)Yosef Himself Wrote:  

(01-21-2020 10:30 AM)Aztec Since 88 Wrote:  It is my understanding based upon comments from Lobo fans that NM does not want NMSU in the same conference.

I'm sure they don't. It's not like they don't schedule yearly games with them in every sport. They'd lose an automatic OOC game in every sport. But I think the two: UTEP and NMSU would have enough votes from everyone else.

NMSU would win either way, if they're the choice to replace UTEP in CUSA.

I don’t think so. I think CUSA who choose Texas St rather than NMSU and Texas St would be making a strong pitch to join their Texas brothers in CUSA West.

Even if that's what happens -- who would then replace Texas State in the Sun Belt?

They don’t need to replace Texas St. They would be at 9 for football and will play a round-robin schedule and still have a CCG.

(01-24-2020 03:23 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 03:15 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-21-2020 05:56 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-21-2020 05:48 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-21-2020 10:35 AM)Yosef Himself Wrote:  I'm sure they don't. It's not like they don't schedule yearly games with them in every sport. They'd lose an automatic OOC game in every sport. But I think the two: UTEP and NMSU would have enough votes from everyone else.

NMSU would win either way, if they're the choice to replace UTEP in CUSA.

I don’t think so. I think CUSA who choose Texas St rather than NMSU and Texas St would be making a strong pitch to join their Texas brothers in CUSA West.

Even if that's what happens -- who would then replace Texas State in the Sun Belt?

They don’t need to replace Texas St. They would be at 9 for football and will play a round-robin schedule and still have a CCG.

That's also true of the other conferences, they "replace" if they want to. And the SBC already showed a preference for 10 football teams rather than 9 when they added Coastal Carolina.

(01-24-2020 03:23 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 03:15 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-21-2020 05:56 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-21-2020 05:48 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-21-2020 10:35 AM)Yosef Himself Wrote:  I'm sure they don't. It's not like they don't schedule yearly games with them in every sport. They'd lose an automatic OOC game in every sport. But I think the two: UTEP and NMSU would have enough votes from everyone else.

NMSU would win either way, if they're the choice to replace UTEP in CUSA.

I don’t think so. I think CUSA who choose Texas St rather than NMSU and Texas St would be making a strong pitch to join their Texas brothers in CUSA West.

Even if that's what happens -- who would then replace Texas State in the Sun Belt?

They don’t need to replace Texas St. They would be at 9 for football and will play a round-robin schedule and still have a CCG.

You have to have 10 for a ccg.

(01-24-2020 03:51 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 03:23 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 03:15 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-21-2020 05:56 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-21-2020 05:48 PM)Wedge Wrote:  NMSU would win either way, if they're the choice to replace UTEP in CUSA.

I don’t think so. I think CUSA who choose Texas St rather than NMSU and Texas St would be making a strong pitch to join their Texas brothers in CUSA West.

Even if that's what happens -- who would then replace Texas State in the Sun Belt?

They don’t need to replace Texas St. They would be at 9 for football and will play a round-robin schedule and still have a CCG.

You have to have 10 for a ccg.

Nope. You can have even 8 teams (FBS min) and hold a CCG as long as you play a round robin schedule.

(01-24-2020 04:04 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 03:51 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 03:23 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 03:15 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-21-2020 05:56 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  I don’t think so. I think CUSA who choose Texas St rather than NMSU and Texas St would be making a strong pitch to join their Texas brothers in CUSA West.

Even if that's what happens -- who would then replace Texas State in the Sun Belt?

They don’t need to replace Texas St. They would be at 9 for football and will play a round-robin schedule and still have a CCG.

You have to have 10 for a ccg.

Nope. You can have even 8 teams (FBS min) and hold a CCG as long as you play a round robin schedule.

They required 10 teams when the Big 12 got its legislation passed. I haven't heard of any change since then.

(01-24-2020 04:36 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 04:04 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 03:51 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 03:23 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-24-2020 03:15 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Even if that's what happens -- who would then replace Texas State in the Sun Belt?

They don’t need to replace Texas St. They would be at 9 for football and will play a round-robin schedule and still have a CCG.

You have to have 10 for a ccg.

Nope. You can have even 8 teams (FBS min) and hold a CCG as long as you play a round robin schedule.

They required 10 teams when the Big 12 got its legislation passed. I haven't heard of any change since then.

There is no more stipulation of a specific amount of teams anymore.

https://www.ncaa.com/news/football/artic...-able-hold

Conferences that want to play championship games must either play their championship game between division winners after round-robin competition in each division or between the top two teams in the conference standings following full round-robin, regular-season competition between all members of the conference.

If Boise went to the AAC, the NY6 slot really becomes a defacto AAC slot. They’ve already won 4 of 6 with Boise taking one of them.

Hawaii, W. Michigan and Northern Illinois got the NY6 bowl. Southern Mississippi, Houston and Fresno State came close.

(01-21-2020 10:30 AM)Aztec Since 88 Wrote:  It is my understanding based upon comments from Lobo fans that NM does not want NMSU in the same conference.

New Mexico and UTEP absolutely don't want NMSU in with them for one good reason and one meh reason.

The good reason is their conference is always going to supply them with a set number of contests and they need to fill non-conference dates and NMSU is perfect for their non-conference slates in that they are close, they also need games and the proximity is such that extra tickets get sold when you are at home and it is an easy trip for your fans when on the road. You make the Aggies a conference mate and you find yourself needing to find someone willing to make a really long trip to face you in non-conference that results in an expensive long trip when you return the game.

The meh reason is the concern that NMSU would be more effective recruiting against them if they are in the same league.

(01-24-2020 05:34 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-21-2020 10:30 AM)Aztec Since 88 Wrote:  It is my understanding based upon comments from Lobo fans that NM does not want NMSU in the same conference.

New Mexico and UTEP absolutely don't want NMSU in with them for one good reason and one meh reason. ...

The meh reason is the concern that NMSU would be more effective recruiting against them if they are in the same league.

The meh reason can also be converted into a conference interest reason by pointing out that while UTEP adds a little to the recruiting range of the MWC, NMSU+UTEP adds exactly nothing versus UTEP alone. So while it won't feature in any press releases, the meh reason seems likely to be mentioned in discussions.

Lamar will replace Texas State in the SBC. Texas State is really an outlier in the SBC.

(01-24-2020 03:38 PM)Wedge Wrote:  That's also true of the other conferences, they "replace" if they want to. And the SBC already showed a preference for 10 football teams rather than 9 when they added Coastal Carolina.

Could be, but that was an all-sport add of a school right near the eastern edge of their previous footprint.

I'd guess that between the three options ... play a complete round robin as 9, with the conference byes and loss of game inventory that entails, invite NMSU FB-only, with the extra travel that entails, or invite UMass FB-only.

If they are choosing between UMass and NMSU, NMSU would leave the divisional alignment stable, while UMass would either push someone -- Troy? -- from East to West or else would in the Western division on a much more distant island from the Western Division schools than NMSU. Between that and the history, NMSU seems a lot more likely.

But NMSU between a 9 school round robin, I dunno.

One difference from the time they failed to get a supermajority to extend NMSU's FB-only contract is at that time, dropping down from 12 FB members to 10 did not drop their base CFP payout, which is per school up to 10 members. This time, if there is a departing FB member, the base drops by one share, and that would be restored if they replace a departing FB member. The SBC might, for example, pass half of that on to NMSU and share the other half of it to whichever schools are visiting NMSU as a travel subsidy.