BYU To The WAC Was Code Named 'The Project' And How It All Went Down
by Jeremy Mauss on Aug 27, 2010 12:17 AM PDT
in Conference Expansion
Email
PrintThis deal between the WAC and BYU was a done deal with contracts in place and they even had a code name 'The Project.' This has to be proof that this was done, because people out there are saying nothing was done because there were no contracts.. This was a done deal and The Salt Lake Tribune is brining light to how 'The Project' came to be:
Documents and e-mail correspondence between the parties, obtained by The Tribune from USU through an open records request, show how close the plan came to being finalized; how MWC Commissioner Craig Thompson's last-minute wheeling and dealing scuttled it; how television sports giant ESPN was involved from the beginning; and how desperately USU wanted instate rival BYU to declare its independence in football and join its conference in everything else.
The Project started to fall apart when Fresno State and Nevada accepted a bid to leave the WAC even though they just agreed to a $5 million buyout for leaving the league. One odd item is thatNevada was one of the schools to be on this bandwagon. One note that this Tribune article mentions is that Craig Thompson said he added Fresno State and Nevada to strengthen the league, but in reality it was a move to block BYU from having a cushy landing spot.
More emails between WAC members and commissioner Benson all but had this deal wrapped up last week:
Another Benson e-mail tells WAC members "I talked to BYU reps several times over the weekend and they are getting close to finalizing the deal with ESPN. ... It appears BYU is prepared to go forward despite not getting the exact number they were hoping for. ... Assuming they reach a deal today Pres. Samuelson will then call for a special meeting of the Church Council - more than likely Wednesday - to recommend the deal to go independent in football and to join the WAC in all other sports. It is expected that the [Board of Trustees] will approve the recommendation."
BYU had everything in place as did the WAC, but to most peoples surprise Mountain West Commissioner Craig Thompson made a quick striking move to stomp this plan, by inviting Fresno State and Nevada. Also, what number was BYU trying to get, because the reported deal from ESPN was about $4 million per year to show maybe six games. So, had ESPN and BYU been able to get a deal done on last Tuesday on August 17th the special meeting would have been called for Wednesday with BYU making the announcement and we all would be discussing BYU as an independent.
The vote to add BYU was 7-0 with Nevada not voting. That vote was taken prior to August 13th because an email came out that day saying that the stance toward media would be 'no comment.' So, for what ever reason a deal was not made at that time and when word leaked out Craig Thompson pounced.
A question to ask is why did Nevada not vote? Did they not believe in the move, well that would have resulted in a no vote, so this is very interesting to why they did not vote either way.
Craig Thompson got word that the BYU issue was real on Monday August 16th, so in my opinion he did lie by saying he did not know what BYU was planning to do. Thompson saying that he invited Fresno State and Nevada to bolster the league was a bold face lie and was a way to hurt the WAC and force BYU to stay in the league.
So a few questions to ask are why did Nevada and Fresno State leave? Utah State had the opportunity to do so, but they stood behind their agreement with the WAC even though they were invited first. The night of the press conference Utah State felt betrayed by their now former league mates:
And the night ended with a note from Michael Kennedy, USU vice president for federal and state relations, to Albrecht as he watched Thompson's news conference announcing the two additions: "I'm watching the [Mountain West Television Network] and feeling sick to my stomach. Any silver lining?"
Albrecht's reply: "Unfortunately, no. Thompson hasn't returned my call. Not a good sign."
Back to Nevada and Fresno State on why they left. The money was not much better and considering adding two more schools in small (Reno) to decent sized (Fresno) markets that would not drive the price up to what the Mountain West currently pays to nine teams. The BCS could be an implication because the Mountain West was close to being a BCS league and even though Nevada and Fresno State's stats would not have counted (but would have helped) they may have been hoping the league became an automatic qualifying league.
That would have brought in more money to those schools. Maybe the biggest issue was that BYU had a lesser buyout of only $2 million while the rest had five million, BYU could have left for a BCS league with no penalty, or that the BYU deal was only for five seasons. Something had to of change for Fresno and Nevada to make the move, and the only other option to consider is travel and going to Louisiana Tech and Hawaii was too much every year for the minor sports, and the one trip to TCU was not a big deal.
Finally there is this email that had Utah State unprepared this was also obtained from Jay Drew of the Salt Lake Tribune. This first part sets up the email:
It went out from USU's Albrecht to Fresno State president John Welty the afternoon of Tuesday, Aug. 17. Obviously, Welty/Fresno State would accept the MWC's invitation the next day. But it illustrates how quickly the tables turned in the bloodbath between conferences. Remember, Boise State is in the WAC now, but agreed in June to join the MWC (beginning in 2011).
"John, you will be visiting with [Boise State president] Bob Kustra shortly. I would appreciate it if you would not let him know about this message from me, but the purpose of his call is to invite FSU, Nevada and Utah State to consider joining the MWC.
I basically told him that they were more than a day late and a dollar short. He did tell me that BYU's president told them in a conference call this morning that the BYU-WAC deal is a done deal and will be formally announced in the next few days.
That has left the MWC scrambling. They are concerned about losing their TV contract entirely, as well as worrying about other teams now looking to move.
Bob put a positive face on this and indicated that they could survive as an 8-team league, but they have clearly been caught unprepared for this. I think this puts us in [a] very strong position to take some additional positive steps forward."
Stan
This realignment process was extremely cut throat and no one looks good. BYU tried to sneak away in the night with back room dealings, Fresno State and Nevada had a deal in place then jumped ship, and Craig Thompson made the move to invite Fresno and Nevada to spite BYU and not allow them to have a place to play. Now Utah State who did the honorable thing may be stuck with an extremely watered down league or possibly even no league in a few years.
Follow Mountain West Connection via Twitter and Facebook for News Quick Hits and Random Nonsense.
156 comments
|
Add comment
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Sigh. This whole event drove me for a loop or two. I thought the MWC was dead. Then I became excited once I learned that Nevada and Fresno joined the conference. Then I grew even more excited when I learned that a possible twelve-team conference was in the works. …Then I began to feel sorry for Utah State for doing the right thing. Now I just want this whole ordeal to be over with. Thanks a lot, BYU.
Unfortunately, the quest for BCS glory has forced two conferences that were once brothers-in-arms to attempt to destroy one another and no party (save for schools not named BYU) is innocent. While I am happy as a Wyoming alum that the MWC is now stronger, this is still very sickening. The WAC is more than likely dead. I wish the best to the rest of their schools.
Had Utah STAYED in the MWC
BYU would have little reason to jump ship from the MWC as it would assuredly become an AQ conference. So THANK UTAH for being douchebags.
Guaranteed BCS
But oh well, if BYU had the invite they wouldn’t have blinked either. Let’s see, LA or Laramie in the fall?
I still think they’re a used douchebags though.
by vaughnzipper on Aug 27, 2010 7:42 AM PDT up reply actions
Laramie in the Fall...
is actually quite lovely. November… not so much.
I miss Laramie winters. Badly.
I know you think I’m insane for that, but absolutely love the ‘Winter Wasteland’ effect.
by David Hooper on Aug 27, 2010 7:50 AM PDT up reply actions
wow
I got stuck their overnight driving back from AFA during a nasty blizzard.
Mountain West Connection The best site for MWC sports!
by Jeremy Mauss on Aug 27, 2010 8:00 AM PDT up reply actions
They shut down I-80 on you, right?
Happens all the time.
by David Hooper on Aug 27, 2010 8:06 AM PDT up reply actions
kinda
my honda civic did a 360 on 80 and had to get towed back to Laramie. I am sure 80 would have been closed since it was like 6pm, getting dark, and that fun sideways snow with the wind.
Mountain West Connection The best site for MWC sports!
by Jeremy Mauss on Aug 27, 2010 8:23 AM PDT up reply actions
I made the drive on I-80 one December
and I don’t recommend it. I watched two trucks go off the road and then got stuck in Rawlins due ti I-80 closure. Every crack on the road was full of ice and the wind was blowing about 40 mph the whole time. Overall it pretty much sucked. But I can relate with missing winter. Utah winters are pretty great, southern winters? What winter?
Or don't and consider what your team would've done in a similar circumstance.
Maybe Ute fans need to get a bunch of “WWYTD” t-shirts printed.
Utah is not the villain here. If you want to go back to the beginning and point fingers, blame the TV networks that have turned a collegiate sport of “amateur” athletics into a business. All Utah did was parlay some on-field and academic success into a more lucrative position. It’s the same thing we all try to do in our careers. Facts are, if the Pac hadn’t felt the need to make more money on TV contracts, Utah would’ve never been invited. By that same token, BYU tried to improve their lot as well. I’m not happy about how they went about it, but I also don’t see how else they could’ve gone about it, considering the nature of their “Project”. It’s not so much the chain-reaction that sucks, but the outcome. The WAC is screwed. USU is screwed, Hawaii? Screwed. San Jose & New Mex State? Also screwed.
So I’ll fix that for ya: So THANK the BCS, ESPN, CBS, Comcast, Tostitos, Nokia, the Pac 10, the Big 12, the Big 10, the SEC and on and on for being douchebags.
by FeloniousMonk on Aug 27, 2010 9:44 AM PDT up reply actions 4 recs
FeloniousMonk is on point
The BCS system has created a terrible environment for the mid-major conferences.
I feel pity for Utah State, but I still want no part of them in the MWC as long as we have BYU to bring the Utah market.
I also would prefer that the WAC survive somehow (in a capacity that doesn’t give BYU a landing spot) as I have fond memories of us winning the WAC back when LT was around, and it seems a shame for it to fold. Maybe an invite to UNT or some other Sun Belt schools would help? The WAC has been willing to take Texas schools on in the past, and the Mean Green would appreciate increased bowl bid likelihood.
Thompson is a moron
If his intent was to spite BYU (liar) then we can kiss the bcs goodbye. You don’t make business deals based on emotions you tool! Pick up your purse and start dealing! Talk about a knee jerk reaction! Atleast BYU can say they reviewed independence for over a month, Thompsons decision went down in 3 days.
Blame BYU all you guys want, Thompson is still the fool “leading” us to bcs. Yeah right.
by vaughnzipper on Aug 27, 2010 5:48 AM PDT via mobile reply actions
BCS or not, the most important part of Thompson's job description is to protect the MWC.
Had BYU left, there was a real chance of TCU, USAFA, and Boise leaving as well, which could have ended up killing the MWC conference off. His first priority was to make sure the MWC remained a healthy and viable conference. And even if the BCS dreams no longer happen, it’s still the best midmajor conference out there.
Sure, Thompson did all of this in three days. I would bet, however, that he would have preferred to have more time. Seeing as he did not even know about the BYU deal until that late in the process, he had — oh, about three days — to save the MWC. More time was BYU’s luxury, not Thompson’s.
by David Hooper on Aug 27, 2010 5:52 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
That's just it though
How did he save the MWC? BYU could still bounce for all we know and the MWC would be left in an even worse situation by having added 2 small markets and mediocre teams. If BYU were to jump the MWC is in a worse situation with less money going to the schools because they have to slice the pie more ways but without their biggest tv audience attractor(?).
It was an irrational move by Thompson. If he really was trying to save the conference he would have gone straight to BYU and started dealing. Not try and thwart BYU by adding other teams and hoping BYU renigs and stays in the MWC.
I would love to see this all hit Thompson square in the face… Independence for BYU!
by vaughnzipper on Aug 27, 2010 7:00 AM PDT up reply actions
If BYU leaves, the MWC will still be at 10 teams.
And even if a BYU departure meant that TCU, USAFA, and Boise left, there would still be six teams in the league. the ‘5 teams playing for 6 years’ tag would be a problem, but if that’s the only exemption the MWC needs, the NCAA would probably grant it.
And while Fresno and Nevada aren’t exactly Utah and BYU in terms of national cache, they’re still the best teams that the WAC had left. Even without BYU, the MWC is a better football conference than the WAC, which will allow them to negotiate better TV deals and outpace the WAC for the inclusion of more schools. That, and the MWC is a better overall basketball conference which, although secondary, is still an important bit of leverage in what is now an open range war.
Irrational? Yes, perhaps. But any decision Thompson made has to be considered within the context of two things: (1) he only had three days to act, and (2) his ultimate loyalty is to the conference, not to BYU, TCU, Boise, or any other team.
Trust me, having Fresno and Nevada does not leave a BYU-less MWC in a worse position than without those two teams. the worst-case scenario was having BYU leave with no new teams to show for it. In that case, Boise would almost certainly have returned to the WAC (with absolutely no penalty) and CUSA would have tried to poach TCU.
by David Hooper on Aug 27, 2010 7:16 AM PDT up reply actions
BYU leaves = less money in tv
Which means less money for other schools. I would venture to guess that Nevada and Fresno combined would not equal the tv revenue BYU brings to the MWC. Not fact, just opinion.
Here’s my point, BYU and Utah leave but the MWC adds 3 you would hope that those 3 could replace the 2 that left in terms of revenue but they don’t. And that’s just equalling, not adding. BUT you’ve added one extra team. Now, you’ve taken an already depleted amount of funds and you have to give out to an additional school. Not a recipe for success.
by vaughnzipper on Aug 27, 2010 7:23 AM PDT up reply actions
Not a recipe for success.
Let’s accept that point. Even at that, the inclusion of Boise, Fresno, and Nevada is less disastrous for the MWC than not having them. It’s not success, per se, but it’s not failure.
by David Hooper on Aug 27, 2010 7:27 AM PDT up reply actions
he had to keep the league afloat
I am really just tired of what will happen and want this to be over. Preferably before Sept 1
Mountain West Connection The best site for MWC sports!
by Jeremy Mauss on Aug 27, 2010 8:10 AM PDT up reply actions
To the second point: straight negotiations with BYU.
Given the information above, what kind of negotiation with BYU would have even been possible? BYU and the WAC had already struck a deal, and most/all of the WAC teams had already signed a financially binding agreement. Football schedules were already drawn up, and negotiations were well underway between BYU and ESPN for independent TV deals.
When he heard the news, I have no doubt that Thompson’s first phone call was to BYU. If BYU responded the way that most schools do, then Thompson got an earful of busy signal. If BYU spoke with Thompson, I can’t imagine that there was much opportunity for negotiation. Certainly BYU would not have given him the details of the WAC contract.
Honestly, if BYU was interested in dealing with the MWC, they would have spoken with the MWC far earlier than this.
by David Hooper on Aug 27, 2010 7:21 AM PDT up reply actions
It wasn't his first call though
In his “press conference” Thompson said he had not heard from BYU nor had he tried to contact BYU. He jumped the gun and went to those other schools. BYU would have certainly spoke to Thompson, maybe not about all the details, but without formally saying they’re interested in independence. Thompson made it very clear he wanted nothing to do with negotiations and BYU. He took the low road and tried to undercut BYU instead.
by vaughnzipper on Aug 27, 2010 7:28 AM PDT up reply actions
maybe
but the MWC didnt have the leverage to perhaps triple the tv money. I think Thompson lied about not contacting BYU, maybe he didnt get a hold of them but he is an idiot if he did not try, oh wait we are talking about Craig Thompson right?
Mountain West Connection The best site for MWC sports!
by Jeremy Mauss on Aug 27, 2010 8:12 AM PDT up reply actions
COnsidering Thompson's ACTIONS
It’s no wonder they dealt the way they did. They HAD to as Thompson’s actions show us the type of character he has. Through lies, spite and last minute knee jerk reactions, BYU just got screwed by Thompson. Pretty much impossible dealing any other way when you have someone like Thompson who’s willing to compromise his integrity. BYU was doing their due diligence by dotting their i’s and crossing their t’s and attempt to preempt the behavior that Thompson just demonstrated to us.
LOL...
I didn’t realize when I had made my post last week about this situation that the MWC bylaws, agreed upon by all members of the MWC, would not allow BYU to have an independent football and keep the rest of the sports in the conference. There is no way the rest of the Presidents and Chancellors would agree to change the bylaws for BYU. So, instead of keeping to the agreement that BYU helped to produce, and signed as a member, they went behind the back of their other conference members to achieve independence at their expense, and put roadblocks in the way that would not have allowed the MWC to recover.
Craig serves at the pleasure of the schools involved in the MWC. He was doing his job to block BYU’s defection, as well as retain the position nationally of the MWC. I don’t view his reaction as underhanded, as he made it clearly known that he was renegotiating the TV contract, sending invites to other schools, and having conference calls with all the other schools in the MWC (including BYU, who is still a voting member). I think that it is in fact telling that BYU voted to send invites to Fresno and Nevada… when in fact they had agreements in place with these schools to defect to the WAC. Who exactly is playing both sides here?
Interesting...
because this makes Craig’s comment during the press call last week where he said BYU participated, and the vote was unanimous, misleading.
Misleading?
Nah, lying! The dude also said he had no idea about BYU’s independence until that Wednesday but yet now the truth comes out and he’s caught in a lie.
by vaughnzipper on Aug 27, 2010 8:02 AM PDT up reply actions
Don't get me wrong
I’m not a cheerleader for Craig. I think more than enough unsavory-ness has transpired in this situation. But I keep having to go back to where this originated, and how it was handled by the primary beneficiary of tearing the MWC apart.
he did get caught
He knew something was up Monday the week of all this going done.
Mountain West Connection The best site for MWC sports!
by Jeremy Mauss on Aug 27, 2010 8:13 AM PDT up reply actions
In going over the press conf...
I was under the impression that Craig was opening up an avenue for BYU to save face in this all. He portrayed them as a loyal and productive member of the conference, and did not get into many particulars about what happened this week. It was a clever move by him to not back BYU into a corner, but rather entice them through words and deeds to stay as “a loyal and productive member of the MWC”.
Yet he said and supported it when asked
That the MWC would not make concesions for BYU. He even said something like “BYU knows who we are” the balls in their court.
by vaughnzipper on Aug 27, 2010 8:46 AM PDT up reply actions
technically if one doesn't vote
the vote is unanimous in that all of those that voted, voted to confirm. Lawyer and PR types tend to use words and phrases like ‘unanimous’, ‘no contact’, ‘keeping our options open’, and ‘no indication’ in very loose ways.
And don't get me wrong.
I don’t mind that you don’t like Thompson or the MWC, or that you want independence. You’re cheering for your interests, just as I’m cheering for mine.
by David Hooper on Aug 27, 2010 7:23 AM PDT up reply actions
I get your side just as I would hope others would get BYU's.
by vaughnzipper on Aug 27, 2010 7:23 AM PDT up reply actions
Regardless of rivalric (new word!) feelings,
I’m sure that everybody appreciates having BYU in the conference. Things are certainly far more interesting with BYU. We’re all entertained, and that’s what this is ultimately all about.
And I have a feeling that BYU would miss all of the longstanding rivalries, no matter how crude or boorish the BYU fans perceive the rest of the league to be.
by David Hooper on Aug 27, 2010 7:29 AM PDT up reply actions
You haven't been to a BYU game then
BYU fans (loyal since 1920) are a bunch of oldies. You have to get to the student section if you have any hope for a good time.
Sure the steadiness of the conference would be missed but a lot of that luster is gone with Utah jumping. Remember, TCU only joined like 5 years ago. There’s not much left for BYU to get psyched about.
by vaughnzipper on Aug 27, 2010 7:31 AM PDT up reply actions
I've been to a BYU home game.
And yes, my strongest memories are of the blue-haired crowd.
by David Hooper on Aug 27, 2010 7:42 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I understand the idea of independence...
but I just can’t get over how shortsighted I feel that move is. I’m still pretty sure that the MWC will get a BCS AQ bid, if the league continues to stay intact. Two years of current revenue certainly is not exciting for BYU and most of the other schools, but after the BCS bid comes in then the money will be a lot better. Plus, if BYU wins a conference championship… they get their first BCS game.
Thompson inviting 2 teams with only 72 hours of thought is shortsided
This has been a topic among BYU fans for years. The idea that they’ve been “interested” in independence for 2 months is underselling it.
It ultimately comes down money. BYU can make more as an Indie than in the MWC. Plus, an invite from the Big12 is iminent.
by vaughnzipper on Aug 27, 2010 7:39 AM PDT up reply actions
72 hours was reactive
And proved to be successful. Yes, I know independence has been at the forefront for decades now, but the timing still seems very odd. The chances of BYU going to a BCS game in the MWC as conference champ is probably significantly higher than being an independent.
Also, where is there news of an imminent Big XII invite? Is this wishful thinking on your part? Seems to me in the conference mayhem of this summer, the Big XII would have struck already.
But that does bring up an interesting scenario. Do you think Craig would have knee-jerk invited KSU, KS, and Mizzou if BYU had defected to the Big XII? Of course not, because why would those schools leave. My opinion is that Craig played the only cards he had available to keep the MWC’s bid for a BCS AQ in play. Short sighted on his part? I would look at it as his only real choice.
I guess I spoke too soon
in that BYU is staying. In my exuberance I forgot that BYU had not officially announced that they are staying. My assumption is that they will be staying, at least for the short term. I guess we find out shortly what their final decision is.
But again… what about this Big XII invite?
It is wishful thinking
With the way Texas and BYU’s relationship going I see them being an advocate for BYU.
by vaughnzipper on Aug 27, 2010 8:19 AM PDT up reply actions
That's about as much sense...
as Texas being an advocate for Wyoming. UT was quite happy with their trip to Laramie, and their fans were actually excited too. To those fans, this was a trip to a place (luckily in nice weather) that few had ever been to. I spent a good night drinking with UT fans before the game.
Granted, BYU has a much better reputation over the decades than poor old UW in terms of football consistency, but just because the team has a nearly identical 3 game deal doesn’t mean that Texas feels like being an advocate for another team to divide its big pie with.
If Texas is interested in keeping the Big 12 alive, BYU makes sense.
If Texas would prefer to set up their TV network and then join the PAC in a superconference, then they won’t really care one way or the other about BYU. I still think this is their most preferred option in the long term.
by David Hooper on Aug 27, 2010 8:23 AM PDT up reply actions
You must not know about the tv network
Texas and BYU have become VERY close friends lately, hardly the level of relationship UW has with them.
by vaughnzipper on Aug 27, 2010 8:40 AM PDT up reply actions
just because they want to go to provo
doesnt meant they are best friends. I think part of the reason Texas is going to Provo is to look at the media center, because that is what Texas needs when/if they have their own tv station
Mountain West Connection The best site for MWC sports!
by Jeremy Mauss on Aug 27, 2010 8:46 AM PDT up reply actions
Yahtzee.
Like everything else that’s been going in, Texas’s motives are all about the bidness.
by David Hooper on Aug 27, 2010 8:48 AM PDT up reply actions
Exactly.
Texas is friends with their own mother. if AND ONLY if, there is a financial benefit to it. To say that UT and BYU are “friends” is assuming one hell of a lot.
Fear the Frog!
by SammyOBrien on Aug 27, 2010 11:33 AM PDT up reply actions
So you think BYU would just open everything up to Texas just because?
I’m not saying they have some major partnership in place but instead that Texas thinks highly of BYU.
by vaughnzipper on Aug 27, 2010 8:49 AM PDT up reply actions
no
I know this will sound rude and that is not my intention, but why do you think Texas thinks so highly of BYU?
Mountain West Connection The best site for MWC sports!
by Jeremy Mauss on Aug 27, 2010 8:51 AM PDT up reply actions
Not that Texas puts BYU above them
But of the “little guys” texas sees what BYU has to offer, and it’s a lot more than anyone else.
by vaughnzipper on Aug 27, 2010 8:54 AM PDT up reply actions
That's true.
There are more reasons to deal with BYU than any other MWC team. Smart business, that.
by David Hooper on Aug 27, 2010 8:55 AM PDT up reply actions
Not 'just because'
Like all business transactions, Texas will have to give something to BYU in order to learn more of their network. But the two networks do not directly compete, so that should be very easy to arrange if that’s what Texas wants to do. The simplest deal is a straight cash payment to BYU, which Texas can easily afford.
by David Hooper on Aug 27, 2010 8:52 AM PDT up reply actions
I see an eventual invite for BYU to the B12
Mostly because eventually they’ll feel pressured for a title game again. BYU is pretty much the most attractive member available in terms of financial additions to the league, and having a strong program. TCU is a great team but they don’t really bring in the $$. BSU is a strong problem but the inevitable market argument will hold them back.
either that
Or TX breaks away and a new league is formed with the Big XII and maybe TCU
Mountain West Connection The best site for MWC sports!
by Jeremy Mauss on Aug 27, 2010 8:47 AM PDT up reply actions
Actually though, I think that if Texas goes independent
that the B12 will completely blow up with some teams going to the Pac-10 and maybe A&M to the SEC. Most likely the stronger MWC teams defect and join the remainer and form a league. The catch is they have to keep at least 5 teams from one of the conferences to be recognized by the NCAA. At least I think it’s 5.
If Texas leaves, OU leaves with them.
A&M goes to the SEC, like you said. That leaves Tech, Baylor, OkState, Mizzou, Iowa State, and the Kansases.
If this spurs the superconference grab, then Texas and OU go to the PAC, most likely with Tech and Ok-State. Mizzou and likely Kansas go to the Big TenElevenTwelveLookMaICanCount, along with a couple New Yorkish teams for media markets. That leaves Baylor and perhaps K-State.
But even if it doesn’t cause superconference madness, Texas and OU leaving would still shuttle A&M to the SEC and leave behind a rather uninteresting conference. I’d think the chances of the remainders disintegrating into nearby conferences would be higher than them absorbing other teams. But again, it’s all a guess.
by David Hooper on Aug 27, 2010 9:00 AM PDT up reply actions
That felt a little awkward for a reply.
Basically, if Texas leaves, I think the MWC nucleus would remain and teams would graft onto that rather than the reverse, simply because too many other Big 12 teams are already spoken for. Not a very educated guess, though.
by David Hooper on Aug 27, 2010 9:03 AM PDT up reply actions
ooops
I meant to continue: but idk now with the MWC being a (soon to be) 12 team conference. I guess it depends on how many would be left looking for a conference. I know Missouri thinks they could get into the B10, but I don’t think they will ever end there.
I know OU WANTS to stay with Texas
But if Texas goes indy I don’t think OU could follow. I think they’d be on the phone with Larry Scott within minutes of finding out that Texas was leaving.
Fair.
You’re right on that. I’m convoluting a bit; I don’t think Texas really wants indie. There are a lot of advantages to being in a conference, and the PAC would be very lucrative to Texas one the Longhorn Death Star Network is armed and fully operational up.
But if Texas goes indie, OU goes PAC and they keep their rivalry game in the OOC slate.
by David Hooper on Aug 27, 2010 9:07 AM PDT up reply actions
I'm an OU grad
and if Texas some how gets it through the Texas Legislature to damage the other state schools does go indy…OU is staying in the Big 12. They will add a team and keep going. A&M leaves too…ok, they will add 2 teams
Will the Conference be as sexy? NO
But like the MWC isn’t as sexy with Utah and BYU leaving…there will still be programs to add. I’m amazed no one sees the parallel there.
OU is not a Pac-10 school…they had that chance to be one this summer, and decided against it.
OU is not going to the SEC…they had that chance too this summer and turned it down too.
They also aren’t going to the ACC or the Big East.
So where does that leave, OU, and Ok. St, Tech, Baylor, KU, K-state, Mizzou, and Iowa State? In the Big Whatever Conference.
Colorado Rockies correspondent at My Team Rivals (www.mtrmedia.com/rockies) and my own site Rockies Reporter (www.rockiesreporter.wordpress.com) and one of the top Rockies writers at the Bleacher Report.
They could be the Big 8 again(replacing the original Nebraska and Colorado with Texas Tech and Baylor). :) Just sayin’
In that sort of situation (minus UT and A&M) there wouldn’t be as much blockage to adding Houston, as well as maybe Memphis. It’d still be a pretty good basketball conference, and give OSU a chance to shine in football alongside OU.
by VA Libertarian on Aug 27, 2010 5:38 PM PDT up reply actions
No
OU won’t leave. They won’t leave Ok. State behind.
OU is in the conference they want to be in. They had the choice of the SEC and the Pac-10 and turned them down already.
Colorado Rockies correspondent at My Team Rivals (www.mtrmedia.com/rockies) and my own site Rockies Reporter (www.rockiesreporter.wordpress.com) and one of the top Rockies writers at the Bleacher Report.
that would leave a bunch of teams
to form a strong league with TCU, Texas Tech, Okie State, Air force, BYU, Boise, and so on
Mountain West Connection The best site for MWC sports!
by Jeremy Mauss on Aug 27, 2010 9:30 AM PDT up reply actions
or
it looks a lot like a Big 12 conference…that would add TCU, Boise St, BYU, and so on.
Colorado Rockies correspondent at My Team Rivals (www.mtrmedia.com/rockies) and my own site Rockies Reporter (www.rockiesreporter.wordpress.com) and one of the top Rockies writers at the Bleacher Report.
yeah..a whole conference is all about one program….
Let’s look at what it takes to kill a conference: The WAC lost 3 teams…and they aren’t dead yet, and they were hurting to begin with.
Or the MWC…lost 2 of it’s biggest programs…and they didn’t die…they are adding teams.
Colorado Rockies correspondent at My Team Rivals (www.mtrmedia.com/rockies) and my own site Rockies Reporter (www.rockiesreporter.wordpress.com) and one of the top Rockies writers at the Bleacher Report.
Exactly
The BCS is going to require a conference championship and right now they don’t have one set for 2012 and beyond. I’m not saying BYU is the same as Texas or OU but by necessity the Big12 will come knocking on BYU’s door.
by vaughnzipper on Aug 27, 2010 8:48 AM PDT up reply actions
if the bcs rules change
It would not be until 2014 since the new cycle is this year. That is why the MWC/C-USA thing is a ways off.
Mountain West Connection The best site for MWC sports!
by Jeremy Mauss on Aug 27, 2010 8:50 AM PDT up reply actions
'Require' is a heavy word.
Right now, Texas and OU prefer to let the Red River Rivalry be the driving force behind the Big 12’s representative in the BCS. The BCS is not a part of the NCAA (technically) and cannot require conference championships.
Since the Big 12 has been largely stripped of any sustained power in the North, UT and OU have no motivation to add that extra wicket. Win the RRR, and you’re basically in the BCS.
by David Hooper on Aug 27, 2010 8:51 AM PDT up reply actions
No offense, but it's not doubtfull at all, and here's why.
Every year ESPN talks about title games and how big they are and how much harder it is to get to the big game when you have a title game to go through. I see this eventually becoming similar to the ‘weak conference’ argument. I mean eventually there will be 3 seemingly deserving teams trying to get into the title game and if 1 of those doesn’t have a title game to go through the others could be pitched by the media as having a less impressive resume.
Human polls still account for 2/3 of the total BCS score. It’s not a leap in logic to assume that some of the human voters will rank the the team that didn’t have a title game lower than the others.
Doubtful
Texas and OU both hate the title game, and they’re the power brokers of the conference.
The only way I see the Big XII possibly expanding again is if A&M bolts.
by VA Libertarian on Aug 27, 2010 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions
I Agree with Your Reasoning for Choosing BYU...BUT...
…they’re not going to be choosing ANYONE anytime soon. The Big12/10 coaches have always been against a championship game, even when they had one. Adding BYU would, from their perspective, only add another mouth to feed — thinner slices of the pie for UT, OU, A&M, et. al.
I may be mistaken, but I wouldn’t hold my breath for the Big12/10 to invite BYU or any other school. (And adding BYU would only get them to 11 members…who’s #12?)
Fear the Frog!
by SammyOBrien on Aug 27, 2010 11:41 AM PDT up reply actions
If you're looking outside of Texas, they'd probably give Arkansas a call.
LSU is another possibility, though they’re far less likely to move.
by David Hooper on Aug 27, 2010 12:00 PM PDT up reply actions
Arkansas
Has made it clear that they plan to stay in the SEC, and that they would never join a conference that has the type of revenue sharing that Texas demands.
by VA Libertarian on Aug 27, 2010 12:22 PM PDT up reply actions
Wouldn't make any sense for Arkansas anyways.
Yeah, I’d definitely leave $20 million for $8 million in the Texas 10.
Mountain West Connection - The best site for MWC Sports.
UNLV is going all the way this year!
I think the MWC was in danger of falling apart.
Rumors are that the MWC could have put their entire TV deal in jeapordy if they lost BYU without replacing them with an additional market. Nevada and Fresno St. may have been the only possible replacements to save the conference from major disaster. We all know they are not as good as BYU, but there wasn’t a BYU quality team available as a replacement for the MWC.
You may not like the MWC TV deal; however, it is the best option for many MWC teams in terms of revenue. BYU and Utah have better options, but I don’t think most the other MWC teams do. What he did may have saved the MWC. The balance of power was shifting between the WAC and MWC. There were questions of a possible domino effect of other teams leaving if BYU did.
Plus you act like Fresno and Nevada are a major dowgrade for the MWC. If you take BYU and Utah out, how is adding these teams a major downgrade to the remaining teams?
if its about tv
add Houston. I know they are down on the pecking order, but they look to be one of the better non-BCS schools in the future and people will watch if they are good. Getting Houston is a huge market but the people that would watch may equal what the state of Utah gets. That would make them attractive.
Mountain West Connection The best site for MWC sports!
by Jeremy Mauss on Aug 27, 2010 7:57 PM PDT up reply actions
I dunno about this...
“Getting Houston is a huge market but the people that would watch may equal what the state of Utah gets. "
The Cougars are at best the 6th-most popular team in Houston, and I don’t see that changing anytime soon.
by VA Libertarian on Aug 27, 2010 7:59 PM PDT up reply actions
What About C-USA Exit Penalties?
@ Jeremy — I thought you said UH wasn’t an option because of the severe exit penalties required for leaving C-USA like replacing lost TV revenue for five years. Or did I misunderstand?
Fear the Frog!
by SammyOBrien on Aug 27, 2010 11:13 PM PDT up reply actions
that is correct
$500K for leaving plus whatever damage they cause to the overall league contract.
Mountain West Connection The best site for MWC sports!
by Jeremy Mauss on Aug 30, 2010 7:56 PM PDT up reply actions
He may have had only 72 hours to decide, but he had more than 72 hours to think about Fresno and Nevada.
They were discussed by the MWC throughout the summer, especially before the MWC initially settled on inviting only Boise State. At the time of that invite, Utah was still in the conference and getting Boise simply put the icing on the BCS cake, especially since the ACC would require a more generous exemption than the MWC.
After Utah left, due diligence would have been to at least re-evaluate potential additions to the conference. I don’t think the MWC wanted to invite anybody else yet, when they absolutely had to make a decision, they did so with plenty of research and conversation behind it.
Besides, they couldn’t have invited Fresno and Nevada without permission from the member schools, not including Boise (and probably not including BYU for the same reason that Boise was not included in the WAC vote to include BYU).
by David Hooper on Aug 27, 2010 7:49 AM PDT up reply actions
Big 12
the invite from the big 12 would still come if BYU was in the MWC. I dont see how Thompson invited two teams is shortsighted. He is trying to protect the league and yes it is a jerky move to block BYU from leaving the league to join their rival league he did what he had to do.
Mountain West Connection The best site for MWC sports!
by Jeremy Mauss on Aug 27, 2010 8:17 AM PDT up reply actions
Honestly, I don't think the money is the driving factor for BYU.
I think they want to use their football games to broadcast their church commercials. BYU football represents a very easy way to advertise LDS nationally, especially if they get more teams like Florida State to come to Provo.
The money’s nice and the LDS church is certainly aware of the finances involved, but football is not the most important thing to them in this debate.
And I’m certain that will be reflected in the new MWC/BYU broadcasting arrangements.
by David Hooper on Aug 27, 2010 7:44 AM PDT up reply actions
exposure
They want to use their media center and get better distribution. Being on espn for 4 games or so but if the rest are on BYUtv how is that any better. It is available on nearly all providers but finding is tough and the casual football scrolling to watch games probably wont be in that area to find byutv since its not near any sports channels.
Mountain West Connection The best site for MWC sports!
by Jeremy Mauss on Aug 27, 2010 8:20 AM PDT up reply actions
If people find out they have BYUTV in their cable package
When they never knew it existed before. There isn’t any money in that; however, people could accidentally stumble upon church programming where they didn’t before.
They spent millions on a media center that has a sports studio and HD wiring directly to sports venues like the basketball arena and the football stadium. Doing this would have taken years to plan. I see the exposure. I don’t see how they claim no tithing money goes to sports when they spent millions on sports infrastructure.
Really I think is a very good idea to get better exposure for their network though.
Yes and No
Yes the exposure is what they’re after but they can also pull that off while reeling in millions more while Indy.
by vaughnzipper on Aug 27, 2010 8:51 AM PDT up reply actions
I agree with that
make as much money as possible
Mountain West Connection The best site for MWC sports!
by Jeremy Mauss on Aug 27, 2010 8:58 AM PDT up reply actions
Same feelings
BYU could have waited till December of 2011 when they would have known if the MWC was going to be a BCS league or not.
BYU was inpatient because they wanted their money now and use the media center right away. Yes it would suck to wait a few years to use, but to avoid this may have been worth it. A BCS bid and a new tv deal would have bumped up everyones money in the league.
Mountain West Connection The best site for MWC sports!
by Jeremy Mauss on Aug 27, 2010 8:16 AM PDT up reply actions
I just don't see the BCS coming to the MWC
It’s all a bunch of speculation.
by vaughnzipper on Aug 27, 2010 8:51 AM PDT up reply actions
Ordinarily, they probably wouldn't,
but the ACC is in worse shape than the MWC in terms of the qualification process. The BCS will undoubtedly give the ACC an exemption because there are enough money programs in that conference, but the BCS would look really bad if they admit the ACC while not admitting a more highly qualified MWC (according to the BCS criteria).
So long as the MWC doesn’t utterly collapse this year — which they shouldn’t — they’ll stay ahead of the ACC and pretty much force the BCS to include them if the BCS wants the ACC.
by David Hooper on Aug 27, 2010 8:55 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
beat me to it hooper
I have been mentioning this a lot and no one on the radio and print in SLC ever, ever bring it up, and its a valid reason for BYU to stay.
Mountain West Connection The best site for MWC sports!
by Jeremy Mauss on Aug 27, 2010 8:58 AM PDT up reply actions
I see the MWC getting in with an exemption for the same reason.
Also, if they accept the MWC, after 2012 every team to bust the BCS except Hawaii would be comfortably aligned within a BCS conference. Which == a lot less bad press about the BCS.
it all depends on BYU
If BYU stays they have a shot without no chance.
Mountain West Connection The best site for MWC sports!
by Jeremy Mauss on Aug 27, 2010 9:00 AM PDT up reply actions
Probably, it's not a guarantee though.
And I don’t see BYU leaving at this point, the MWC is gonna cave to keep them.
Despite the TV revenue they (the other members) stand to lose, overall it’s in everyone’s best interest to give BYU a small sweatheart deal and keep the band together.
I have no problem with the MWC 'caving in'.
If BYU gets their network running, that only means more games broadcast, which ultimately helps the MWC. It might hurt network negotiations with ESPN or somebody, thanks to having fewer BYU games available, but more TV is good TV.
by David Hooper on Aug 27, 2010 9:05 AM PDT up reply actions
they really do
I have said this a ton, but hear me out again. The current numbers have the MWC in if they petition, however so does the ACC, but the ACC will keep their bid due to their Orange Bowl bid.
The MWC is higher in some categories then the ACC and if the ACC gets in and the MWC does not their is going to be hell. It would be very hard to deny a league that is essentially equal or if not better then a league that gets in on petition.
That is why if the MWC and ACC keep at their current pace then the mwc will get a bid.
Mountain West Connection The best site for MWC sports!
by Jeremy Mauss on Aug 27, 2010 8:57 AM PDT up reply actions
Yeah
But they’ll find some way to screw the outsiders.
by vaughnzipper on Aug 27, 2010 9:00 AM PDT up reply actions
I normally hold the pessimistic view like this
but I think the desire to not have bad PR gets the MWC in.
they would at least try
Mountain West Connection The best site for MWC sports!
by Jeremy Mauss on Aug 27, 2010 9:10 AM PDT up reply actions
They'd definately WANT to.
But, I think they’ve been beaten up in the press enough at this point to let us in without too much protest. The MWC in the BCS further solidifies the BCS strangle hold on college athletics. I mean let’s face it, the WAC is dead so they’re not a threat anymore. And the MAC and C-USA haven’t realistically gotten within sniffing distance of a BCS game. So adding the MWC neatly bundles up and silences all the squeeky wheels.
True, but this year's ACC might be much higher than the last few years.
There are 3 great teams in the ACC this year (GA Tech, VA Tech and UNC), Clemson and Miami are really good. We’ll see about FSU and some of the other teams, but the odds of the ACC having a low-number year are much smaller than they have been the past 3 years.
Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.
by displacedute on Aug 27, 2010 4:21 PM PDT up reply actions
And the MWC's stats are prepared to be pretty good as well.
TCU and Boise St. are both prepared to go to the national championship. San Diego State won’t be ranked as low as past years. Nevada is poised for a breakout year. No one could really tell what Fresno State could do – they’re playing in the WAC this year. Wyoming and AFA will both be ranked higher than last year. I don’t know how you could get worse than UNM was last year which means they should be somewhat better. CSU will be starting a promising QB in true freshman Pete Thomas and has a stable of QB’s. They will be better. UNLV still has some talent and shout get 4-5 wins this season putting them at the same place they’ve been over the past 2 seasons. BYU isn’t expected to be as productive, but Bronco Mendenhall continues to surprise us.
The MWC will keep up with the ACC as far as stats go.
Mountain West Connection - The best site for MWC Sports.
UNLV is going all the way this year!
Nevada and Fresno
Unless they get in 2011 they wont count.
Mountain West Connection The best site for MWC sports!
by Jeremy Mauss on Aug 27, 2010 7:58 PM PDT up reply actions
They could have been more defections to the WAC if BYU left
SDSU was informally contacted:
It was one of many informal and hypothetical discussions in the WAC and MWC as Brigham Young University explored leaving the MWC to become an independent in football.
"I know the commissioner there, and weeks ago, it was, ‘What if something happens?’" Sterk said. "We’re an attractive member, so if things changed they wanted San Diego State to be in play if you will."
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/aug/20/was-sdsu-play-wac/
by Smoove V on Aug 27, 2010 7:42 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
true
He hoped and still is hoping that his move to bring in Fresno and Nevada would keep BYU in the mwc. He did lie in the presser by saying they were brought into make the league better, but they were brought in to remove a place for BYU to go.
Mountain West Connection The best site for MWC sports!
by Jeremy Mauss on Aug 27, 2010 8:02 AM PDT up reply actions
I know I didn't believe Thompson
I mean it does make the league better, but everyone with normal intelligence realized what was really going down in the hood.
I have to agree with Hooper...
Business is business. The WAC and BYU made a play that made business sense for them. USU made a decision that they felt was best for them, business wise (I don’t buy that they did the “right thing”). And…Craig Thompson and the MWC did what was best for them, business wise, and turned the tables. I don’t believe spite had anything to do with it. I believe it was more of a blocking maneuver, like you might see in a chess match, with an alternate outcome in mind. Yes, Fresno State and Nevada were pawns, but the ultimate goal was to change BYU’s perception that the grass was greener in the WAC. What Thompson did shifted the power back to the MWC, even if BYU still decides to go independent. Good for him, good for the MWC. So sad for the USU, the WAC, and most importantly (for me) BYU.
"They are who we thought they were!"
I think BYU has looked at Independence for more than a few months
It took years to build the media center and wire the sports facilities with HD. So years of BYU planning lost to Craig Thompsons 3 days of reaction time.
Calling Fred Thompson a fool is foolish. I know a lot of Utah fans calling BYU CTB now. CT stands for Craig Thompson.
they have been looking at it for maybe 20 years
Mountain West Connection The best site for MWC sports!
by Jeremy Mauss on Aug 30, 2010 7:57 PM PDT up reply actions
My two nagging thoughts:
First, I would like to specifically know Fresno’s reason for leaving. IIRC, they accepted the invite first, and the news of their acceptance might have been enough for Nevada to make the move. It really feels to me that Fresno is the lynchpin in all of this.
Second, I wonder what the WAC schools really thought of being a farm system for BYU games. Since BYU would have been indie, they wouldn’t have to have equitable home-and-home rotations with the WAC teams and I’m sure that BYU would have tried to get as many home games as possible. From the WAC’s standpoint, ‘The Project’ feels like an attempt to save some face after losing Boise, but it would have subjugated WAC football to BYU.
reasoning
It is still tough to figure out. Perhaps the two schools that left felt that BYU was a short term get since their deal to be in the WAC was through 2016, BYU had only a $2 million buyout, and could leave the league to a bcs league with no penalty.
Maybe that swayed their opinion, had the MWC not extended an invite they would have been fine, because I dont think they were looking for a way out of the deal. Rather the MWC I guessed saved them, I dont know for sure.
Mountain West Connection The best site for MWC sports!
by Jeremy Mauss on Aug 27, 2010 8:23 AM PDT up reply actions
Plus the MWC tv deal
Everyone bashes it, but it would be an increased revenue from the WAC. It lacks exposure nationally I know, but it still pays more than ESPN pays the WAC.
In addition the WAC champion would never get respect either. My guess is that the WAC champion would always be disrespected because a non-conference opponent would blow through their schedule.
A team like Utah state would be ok with this because it would still be an improvement to what they had. Fresno and Nevada are not in that boat.
I think
I am going to start calling taking a dump “The Project.”
"Football is a violent game played by violent people, so put a smile on your face, murder in your heart and lets go kick these f***kers in the mouth" -Dick Bumpas, TCU Defensive Coordinator
by Ben Findley on Aug 27, 2010 8:24 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
rec'd that one
Mountain West Connection The best site for MWC sports!
by Jeremy Mauss on Aug 27, 2010 9:31 AM PDT up reply actions
LOL
That’s awesome! I’d use that, but I already call it “Going to Provo.” :)
by FeloniousMonk on Aug 27, 2010 9:30 AM PDT up reply actions
and with each wipe
you crush BYU’s hopes and dreams of going indie until they are completely flushed down the toilet.
Probably...
Mountain West Connection - The best site for MWC Sports.
UNLV is going all the way this year!
all of the summers expansion not just this
Mountain West Connection The best site for MWC sports!
by Jeremy Mauss on Aug 27, 2010 7:58 PM PDT up reply actions
Now that you mention ESPN
It’s interesting that thier coverage of the BYU drama completely dissappeared with the WAC. It’s almost like they no longer had something to gain out of covering it.
Noticed that too, eh?
If we’re looking to place blame, lay it at the feet of the TV networks who’ve turned “amateur” athletics into BIG BIDNESS. That’s why all of this has come about. The BCS, conference expansion/realignment, Utah to the Pac, BYU going indie, Texas eating its brothers… College ball has changed irrevocably and we’re all the worse for it.
by FeloniousMonk on Aug 27, 2010 9:50 AM PDT up reply actions
While I'm complaining about the ESPaNiards
As a Ute fan I get really sick of them being all up on BSU’s junk and conveniently trying to ignore what Utah has done. (And we did it first and IMHO best btw.) We get exactly 0 run for it on the ESPN family of networks while they never stop talking about BSU. The reason is clear, we are not broadcast partners with ESPN. Watch for coverage of the Utes on good years to be much more flatering starting in 2011, and BSU’s to be much worse.
Umm...maybe
and there is no doubt that ESPN was good for us. That is one thing the MWC might need to take a look at. You are talking about exposure and so is BYU.
by bluesyourdaddy on Aug 27, 2010 10:50 AM PDT up reply actions
I now see why everyone hates BYU
The BYU fans on here are delusional.
BYU to the Big XII? Not in a million years. They don’t bring enough to the table, and OU/Texas hate the idea of a conference title game. On more than one occasion the Big XII title game severely messed with a Big XII team getting into the national championship.
Also, BYU fans seem irrationally angry at the Mountain West for spoiling their secret party.
by VA Libertarian on Aug 27, 2010 11:38 AM PDT reply actions
Only one BYU fan mentioned the Big 12.
And there really haven’t been all that many BYU fans posting here.
I totally agree that the Big 12 is likely not expanding anytime soon. Though I do think that BYU would have to be one of the schools considered should they decide at some point in the future to expand. But I don’t think that is anywhere on the horizon right now.
I’m also not really angry at the Mountain West. They what they needed for preservation. I’m maybe a little bummed, but that’s it.
Your User Name isn't vaughnzipper
He seems to think exactly the opposite of you.
Mountain West Connection - The best site for MWC Sports.
UNLV is going all the way this year!
exactly
he thinks BYU is dead set for the Big XII
Mountain West Connection The best site for MWC sports!
by Jeremy Mauss on Aug 27, 2010 7:59 PM PDT up reply actions
That works
But you supported it Jeremy, as did a couple other Utes. As I explained above,
Exactly
The BCS is going to require a conference championship and right now they don’t have one set for 2012 and beyond. I’m not saying BYU is the same as Texas or OU but by necessity the Big12 will come knocking on BYU’s door.
by vaughnzipper on Aug 27, 2010 8:48 AM PDT up reply actions
So my theory is based on WHEN the BCS tells the Big 12 they will have to have a conference championship BYU is bound to go.
by vaughnzipper on Aug 28, 2010 8:54 AM PDT up reply actions
Where did you get the idea that the BCS is going to force conference championships??????????
Mountain West Connection - The best site for MWC Sports.
UNLV is going all the way this year!
that is a big IF
for the title game to be a requirement. Maybe that would be a way to keep the MWC out because they dont have a title game and the teams they added wouldnt do too much to improve the situation.
I think BYU if they go indy is for a few years until something bigger comes along, and they better hope something bigger does come.
Mountain West Connection The best site for MWC sports!
by Jeremy Mauss on Aug 30, 2010 7:59 PM PDT up reply actions
I've found that I disagree with vaughnzipper on a lot of things.
And often his tone. I don’t think he’s representative of BYU fans. Maybe I’m not, either, but I suspect at the very least the average fan is somewhere in between.
Big XII
Is the logical choice and all that was said is that if the Big XII wanted more teams BYU would be at the top of the list.
Mountain West Connection The best site for MWC sports!
by Jeremy Mauss on Aug 27, 2010 7:59 PM PDT up reply actions
As weird as this sounds
I think Memphis would be ahead of BYU, based on the Big XII rumors that were floating around at one point.
by VA Libertarian on Aug 27, 2010 8:01 PM PDT up reply actions
they need two teams
Mountain West Connection The best site for MWC sports!
by Jeremy Mauss on Aug 30, 2010 7:59 PM PDT up reply actions
BYU does bring enough to the table for the B12 in my opinion.
If you rank only BCS schools in home football attendance BYU would be in the top 1/3. There are a lot of other reasons BYU deserves to be a BCS school.
That may be so, but...
The Big XII doesn’t want them. Why people don’t/can’t grasp this is beyond me.
by VA Libertarian on Aug 27, 2010 8:50 PM PDT up reply actions
True. That is a good point.
They look in the mirror and see Notre Dame too. They don’t realize Notre Dame controls the Chicago market which is a little larger than SLC. Plus there are a lot more Catholics in the US than LDS.
I'm not sure we know that they specifically don't want BYU.
I think right now we know they don’t want anyone at all, BYU included. But if at some point in the (probably distant) future they changed their mind on that, I haven’t seen anything to indicate that BYU wouldn’t be on the list of schools considered.
any new Big XII team...
Needs to be worth $17 million a year in TV money and no school in the non-BCS ranks can guarantee that.
Mountain West Connection The best site for MWC sports!
by Jeremy Mauss on Aug 30, 2010 8:00 PM PDT up reply actions
No matter what happens to the WAC, I hope that all the remaining WAC teams survive as FBS (or whatever it’s called) schools in football. The more schools out west there are to play, the lower travel costs will be, since it is probably cheaper for MWC teams — okay, fine, Boise State’s the only one I really care about — to go to Logan or San Jose than to play a MAC, CUSA or Sun Belt school on the road.
We want to build a university our football team can be proud of. -- Dr. George Lynn Cross
This is true.
MWC/WAC OOC games are handy for everybody involved.
by David Hooper on Aug 27, 2010 2:40 PM PDT up reply actions
got that right
Mountain West Connection The best site for MWC sports!
by Jeremy Mauss on Aug 27, 2010 7:59 PM PDT up reply actions
Something to say? Choose one of these options to log in.
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Latest Y! Sports Blogs from Yahoo! Sports
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
- Friday’s Three Stars: Blackhawks lose seventh straight; Wings win nineteenth straight at home
- Artur Boruc’s Friday Rage List
- John Wes Townley suspended by RAB Racing after DUI arrest
- Days of NBA Lives: Wherein Roy Hibbert tap-dances to Maine
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
