1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Boise State to MWC

Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by CsquaredCC, May 15, 2010.

  1. CsquaredCC

    CsquaredCC Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2009
    Messages:
    939
    Likes Received:
    74
    More expansion smoke - some television outlets now starting to report BSU to MWC as a done deal. This would likely lock down at least a provisional BCS bid starting in 2012. http://www.kmph.com/global/category.asp?c=170789&clipId=4785404&topVideoCatNo=110549&autoStart=true

    If the Big10 passes on Nebraska and the Pac-10 passes on Colorado...come on over guys. BCS bid, equal revenue sharing, established conference television network, and a championship game in Denver?

    Plains Division
    Nebraska
    Colorado
    Colorado State
    Wyoming
    New Mexico
    Air Force

    Mountain Division
    BYU
    Utah
    TCU
    Boise State
    San Diego State
    UNLV
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2010
  2. HotRack

    HotRack Rez BubbleHead Club Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2009
    Messages:
    7,031
    Likes Received:
    466
    Glad that I had to wade through news about Fresno State's softball team to get to that info! :pissed::smile2:

    Good stuff though. I'll check my connections in Boise to confirm. If I know those Orange and Blue dorks up there, they won't be happy about going to the MWC, they'll be screaming how they got screwed out of going to the Pac-10. Have fun with those guys, they're a lippy bunch.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2010
  3. HotRack

    HotRack Rez BubbleHead Club Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2009
    Messages:
    7,031
    Likes Received:
    466
  4. UrbanaBuff

    UrbanaBuff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    1,270
    Likes Received:
    13
    Oddly, that wouldn't be a bad little conference. It would never happen though. The more realistic approach is to cobble together the best of the old MWC (after Utah leaves) with the remains of the old Big XII (after Mizz, Neb, CU, Tex and A&M leave).

    So, I see the new 16-team Big Mountain looking like this...

    North: Kansas, Kansas St, Iowa St, Colo St, Boise St, Air Force, Wyoming, BYU
    South: Oklahoma, Okla St, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, UNLV, New Mexico, Memphis
     
  5. HotRack

    HotRack Rez BubbleHead Club Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2009
    Messages:
    7,031
    Likes Received:
    466
    Y'know Urbana, if we (as in the administration) manages to find someway to f*** up an invite to the Pac-10, and Pac snags UT and A&M through some miracle (UT and A&M would rather go to P10 than SEC due to market expansion potential) finding a way to be part of your Big Mountain wouldn't be all that shabby. I also like CSquared's suggestion above. But Big Mountain would have much more firepower behind it, plus we'd still have most of the old Big 8 minus NU and Mizzou.
     
  6. MtnBuff

    MtnBuff Not allowed in Barzil 2 Club Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2008
    Messages:
    26,416
    Likes Received:
    2,328
    Another MWC fantasy. Nebraska isn't going to the MWC under any circumstances. If the worst case happened for them (and with their ability to sell tickets and their name as a TV draw it won't) with the entire conference world re-aligning, they would look plains and east before going west. If this happened you would see a conference with kNU, ISU, KSU, KU, CU (under the unlikely circumstance that the PAC doesn't grab them in the fray) along with any left over Texas schools such as Baylor, TT, TCU, SMU, and probably a couple of C-USA schools. In this situation the new conference would probably pluck a couple of teams from the MWC like UNM, Air Force and possibly Utah (again if not moved to the PAC.)

    Look at it from this perspective, when the right four teams in the MWC are all home on the same weekend there are a number of major schools who's one game home attendance is larger than the combined MWC home attendance for that weekend and at ticket prices that are at least double. Wyoming has trouble averaging 20k, CSU in good years has trouble averaging over 28k, last year was well below that, SDSU has had home games with less than 15k sold and much less than that in the stands, UNLV looks at 30k as a good crowd. On the other side CU in a terrible year last year averaged over 47k with ticket prices over double the average for CSU, Nebraska sold over 77k seat for their spring game.

    For NU and CU to join the MWC even with an auto-bid would be a huge step down financially and in prestige. This is not to slam the MWC which has improved significantly in the past decade an is clearly the best non BCS conference showing on the field that it is at least on par with the ACC and the Big East if not better. The reality is that college football is a business and as a business decision based on reputation, publicity, attention, and most importantly dollars generated a step from the Big XII to the MWC would be a huge step down and the schools involved would have no choice than to seek better options.

    A bigger concern for the lower budget MWC schools at this point would be the raiding of the top end of the MWC (TCU, Utah, Air Force, BYU,) and the top of the WAC (Boise [still count until move official,] Fresno, etc.) leaving the others who are not big revenue, large fan base schools out in the cold again as a conference one step up from the Sun Belt or the MAC.
     
  7. Mick Ronson

    Mick Ronson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Messages:
    9,861
    Likes Received:
    268
    Call this the "OU left in the cold conference". One of these things doesn't belong....post this on an OU board, they'd be thrilled. I get they have no direct media market, but they do command a big part of the Dallas market. I think they find a better home than this. This is one of the top 5 programs of all-time, in a conference with Memphis and CSU?
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2010
  8. UrbanaBuff

    UrbanaBuff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    1,270
    Likes Received:
    13
    Yeah, you can play with it a bit. CU could bump out Wyoming or Boise St in the North. In the South, you have some different options. Memphis is a bit east, but an intriguing hoops prospect to put opposite KU. SDSU is a bit west, but has much potential given their SoCal market. Houston has been pretty competitive in both major sports lately. Or even if you wanted to go the academic route to boost your prestige, you find a way to work in Rice, Tulane or SMU.


     
    Last edited: May 15, 2010
  9. ScottyBuff

    ScottyBuff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2008
    Messages:
    2,619
    Likes Received:
    91
    Texas Tech and Baylor might be realistic "gets" for the MWC to get to 12 members (if the Big 12 falls apart), maybe even Kansas State or Iowa State. I think they would hold off on inviting Fresno until things settle themselves among the "Major" conferences.

    Getting Boise this summer is an obvious move for the MWC. It nearly guarantees a BCS auto-bid (if the BCS still exists in 2 years) as long as the MWC in 2010 places 2-3 teams in the top 25 and Boise does likewise while one of the group makes a push for a Top 8 ranking and a BCS at-large bid once again.

    It also is a great defensive move if one or two of their members (Utah, BYU, New Mexico, TCU) could be picked off by a bigger conference.

    The conference members would now have their TV contract diluted for the 2011-16 seasons by about $130k each, unless things get renegotiated with the additional member. The MWC doesn't have any ownership stake in the .mtn network so additional "subscriber fees" do not benefit them directly (as the Big Ten Network does). Adding the BCS AQ revenues would be a significant jump from the $6 million or so the conference gets when they "crash the BCS" to the autopay amount of $15-20 million (it would get recalculated with 7 conferences). It might also help get their network into more markets and create better exposure.

    Comcast/NBC owns a managing 50% of the .mtn network and could decide to air some of their games on NBC, in addition to increasing the 8 "national" games per season on Versus.

    It makes sense across the board for Boise to join the MWC, with rivalries already waiting in the wings with BYU, Utah, and TCU.

    If anything, I feel sorry for Hawaii and Fresno who have much better sports programs than their conference deserves. If Louisiana Tech decides to save travel costs and make a push for Conference USA membership or even SunBelt now that the "cash cow" is leaving it would kill the WAC. Unless of course, Montana makes the long-speculated jump into I-A.

    If I was the Pac-10 or MWC, I would invite Hawaii in a heartbeat and put a restriction on their revenue sharing to go into a travel cost pool for the other members to use for travel to the island in all-sports. It would still be a greater distribution of TV and Bowl money than the WAC (sans Boise) would ever get, so Hawaii would be better off.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2010
  10. UrbanaBuff

    UrbanaBuff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    1,270
    Likes Received:
    13
    I get where you are going, but people have long had OU on the "first to be screwed by expansion" list, so it shouldn't be too surprising. Is Kansas not a Top 5 historical hoops program? I'd put those two on equal planes, relative to football and basketball. Sure, OU may be desirable to the SEC, just as KU is on the outside radar of the Big Ten. But those two programs could definitely carry a conference. It wouldn't be the greatest conference, but it'd be better than the current Big East and MWC, which is a win considering all of the downsides that COULD happen with expansion.

    Also, you act like its below OU to play against some of these MWC teams. Let's not forget that they lost to Boise in the BCS recently. Plus, every conference has a few dogs. Are Baylor and Iowa State really better than Memphis in terms of athletics. I doubt it. Sure, some of these schools are a stretch (CSU, Wyoming), so maybe they cut the fat and trim it down to a 12-14 team conference.


     
    Last edited: May 15, 2010
  11. absinthe

    absinthe Ambitious but rubbish. Club Member Junta Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2006
    Messages:
    25,878
    Likes Received:
    1,499
    This would send the OU crew into melt down, although I am sure they'd make overtures to the SEC pretty quickly. I could see them fitting nicely with the strong academic and moral profile of the SEC.

    Someone should post it over there to see what their thoughts are.
     
  12. Mick Ronson

    Mick Ronson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Messages:
    9,861
    Likes Received:
    268
    these are your words, not mine. so they lost to BSU....so what? that OU team was ranked 15-20 most of the year. wasn't like they were the 1975 Sooners. even if, that doesn't really prove anything re: conference affiliation. CU lost to Montana State...CSU last year....and most people on this board would not want to be part of the MWC as a conference so why should OU want to be? i don't really get the ad hominem aspect of your post.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2010
  13. UrbanaBuff

    UrbanaBuff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    1,270
    Likes Received:
    13
    Seems like you give the Sooners much more respect than would appear normal. So OU is going to be sad about their future conference arrangement? Well, boo hoo and lodi-freaking-da. You think everyone is going to be happy once all the dust settles? And why should OU have a bigger gripe than say Kansas or UConn? All are one-trick ponies with marginal academics, that may find themselves in lesser conferences. Too bad. The schools with more to offer are being wooed elsewhere.

    My comment about Boise just served to legitmize their success of late. I bet they have OU's respect, probably more than many of its current Big XII mates. And regarding your Montana State comment... losing to a WAC team in a BCS game is a WEE BIT different than losing to them in the regular season, wouldn't you say?

     
  14. Mick Ronson

    Mick Ronson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Messages:
    9,861
    Likes Received:
    268
    i would. but, not in the way you mean. losing in a BCS game is much better, because you are IN a BCS game. I never slapped Boise directly, but somehow that's the fulcrum of your response which as i pointed out is relative in two ways: 1. it has little or nothing to do with conference affiliation and 2. winning the Big XII and playing in a BCS game is something you are considering a "negative"? Your other baby of logic is "what about KU?" (or now UCONN, being on equal footing with OU--the latter is not since OU and KU have won National Chamionship across the last 50 years under different coaches vs. UCONN which is Jim Calhoun).

    I don't know what your deal is but I chose Oklahoma over KU because it's clear to pretty much everyone that football is what is driving this thing. that's not controversial. nor does it suggest this preference you want to harp on.

    your argument has all these "exceptions are the rule" contradictions. OK, so Boise is all that based on the last 5 years of football making it a one-dimensional argument (since they and Memphis are better athletically than BU or ISU, you say--never mind that BU made the Elite Eight in men's hoops and Final Four in womens). However, then you toss out "schools with the most to offer".....indicating a total package as what is desirable. you pick and choose. it wouldn't take a great logician to demonstrate that BU or Memphis are better athletically than CU, either. but, see that loops you back into your comprehensive package logic....which is contradicted by your choice of Boise beating OU in a BCS bowl....and on and on.
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2010
  15. MtnBuff

    MtnBuff Not allowed in Barzil 2 Club Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2008
    Messages:
    26,416
    Likes Received:
    2,328
    OU has reason to be nervous about this whole process. I won't repeat it all here but I commented on their position in another thread.

    http://www.allbuffs.com/showthread.php/46973-OU-Pres-says-B-12-will-remain-intact

    OU has a lot to lose in this entire process, not a lot to gain.

    Boise because of it's limited revenue potential is always going to be limited but could end up in a much better position than it started.

    The schools that really have potential to lose out are the schools that have limited revenue potential relative to their current conference affiliation. In the Big XII, if it disolves or loses it's major "name" schools, ISU, KSU, Baylor, TT stand to end up in a conference that is or takes on the status of a mid-major. CU is on the margin of this situation if the admin screws up but the Denver market and CUs status as a popular TV draw make us desirable to major conferences.

    Also in position to lose out are the schools at the bottom of developing mid-major conferences. Wyoming has no significant TV market and has a hard time selling 20k tickets when they are winning. CSU couldn't sell 30k tickets against a ranked Cal team and averages well under 30k even at signficantly lower ticket prices than virtually any BCS conference school, they also are not exactly a TV powerhouse locally or nationally. If the current MWC and WAC schools lose their flagship programs such as Utah, BYU, TCU, maybe Air Force, BSU, Fresno, etc. either move to existing BCS conferences to replace existing members who have moved or to fill those conferences out or join to form a new higher level conference, the lower end schools could be stuck out in the cold becoming more like Sun Belt or MAC schools, D-1 BCS in name only with no real hope of any consistent shot at the brass ring or the money.
     
  16. Mick Ronson

    Mick Ronson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Messages:
    9,861
    Likes Received:
    268
    schools that have a lot to lose are those in low population density states without a top 25 media market of their own. sad, in a way, from a Big 8 perspective. the Big 8 was very competitive in football at the end with CU, NU, and OU MNC's in the previous decade and routinely sending 4-5 teams to the NCAA tournament in the late 80's and early 90's. but, by today's political economy of media/population density (read: fannies in front of TV sets so the networks can sell audiences to advertisers....or start their own conference network to do the same thing) it's not a viable conference not because it didn't/doesn't have an excellent product but because there aren't enough people in those states. so, the Brave New World of college sports is less about competition on the field, but competition for advertising $$$ based in geography and demographics....which, to me, is almost no longer "sport".

    it's easy to convert or justify everything as sports=entertainment, or "free market principles"....but something else is being lost that made college sports what it was...which was "competition" not merely organized mass spectacle.
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2010
  17. UrbanaBuff

    UrbanaBuff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    1,270
    Likes Received:
    13
    Mick, I'm talking about NCAA sports. What the hell are you talking about... philosophy? psychoanalysis? tenets of debate?

    I'd like to respond to your last post to me, but it makes no sense.
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2010
  18. MtnBuff

    MtnBuff Not allowed in Barzil 2 Club Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2008
    Messages:
    26,416
    Likes Received:
    2,328
    College football and basketball always has been about money. The changing landscape of the NCAA over the past few decades and at this time is not about a change in how the sport is run or what it is about but instead about the changing demographics of the country and how entertainment is delivered.

    In the prime of the old Big 8 the conference had advantages. The schools existed (other than CU) in markets with large numbers of people working in agricultural based economies with significant amounts of money relative to the rest of the country and little competition for how to spend it. Farmers, ranchers, machinery distributors, agricultural product processors and distributors had good years and put their surplus dollars into their state universities proportionate to the pride their athletic teams brought them by winning. Over the decades we have had a proportionate shift in population and in economic production from the great plains to the south and the west. Relative spending on college sports has followed.

    The only difference other than these geoeconomic shifts is that entertainment delivery is now media based and thus revenue generation is media based. The chase for the money I am sure started somewhere around the time of Amos Alonzo Stagg and by the time of Knute Rockne for the decision makers money was the objective. Just the way is was, is, and will be, like it or not.
     
  19. Mick Ronson

    Mick Ronson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Messages:
    9,861
    Likes Received:
    268
    Mtn, i don't disagree with you. but, i also think it's easy to take a "it's always been about the money" perspective....that offsets identifying actual influences on the nature of changes in the sports landscape. clearly, TV is a much different kind of player in all this than it was when there were two games on Saturday afternoon. whether these changes are qualitative or quantitative (an acceleration of the existing logic)...is something up for debate. the nature of advertising and sport has undergone dramatic changes in the last 30 years, since cable, the end of broadcast media as the dominant delivery system, the CFA suing the NCAA under Sherman Anti-Trust, with personal communication technology, etc.

    if we say "it's always been like this"....then, it's kind of fatalistic.
     
  20. MtnBuff

    MtnBuff Not allowed in Barzil 2 Club Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2008
    Messages:
    26,416
    Likes Received:
    2,328
    It's not fatalistic, it's simply economic reality. CFB is a business, a business with a significant amount of public investment and political oversight but a business none-the-less. When you start throwing in the "should be's" based on "justice" and "fairness" then the business model collapses and the product ceases to be what it is.

    For every smaller revenue, smaller market school that wants "it's fair piece of the pie" there are the larger revenue producing schools that are not going to let that happen. If you think that Texas or Michigan feel any sense of obligation to be "fair" to the teams they use as opponents in the OOC like North Texas or Western Michigan then you are sadly mistaken. As far as they are concerned they have paid their fair share plus some by paying those schools guarantees to show up on the schedule. If on the odd occasian the intended victim happens to win, so be it but the money is there because of the fans of the big program.

    There will be changes in the economic landscape, the political landscape, the media landscape in the future but when it all settles down those who are responsible for generating the money will insist on and get the lions share of the money, as it should be. Fans of lower revenue programs may not like this but in the big picture it is the only way that truly works to maximize the revenue, and that is why they do it.
     
  21. Mick Ronson

    Mick Ronson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Messages:
    9,861
    Likes Received:
    268

    that's fine. i don't see myself advocating (or being nostalgic for) "redistributive" measures pertaining to justice or money. i don't say anything like that. i merely caution towards a reductive, economic determinist view that tends to produce it's own tautologies as criteria of "proof". and: to take note of en evolving CFB landscape in which play on the field is a secondary criteria for determining "competition".

    i think Missouri is coming off as a bit of whiner in all this. they've had 2 top 10-15 type years and all of a sudden they are bent because they don't have the same TV appeal/revenue as UT or OU?
     
  22. MtnBuff

    MtnBuff Not allowed in Barzil 2 Club Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2008
    Messages:
    26,416
    Likes Received:
    2,328
    I agree with you on this. Outside of a couple of good years recently and the occasional up year over the past few decades, what has Mizzou done to put themselves in the conversation as an upper echelon team. I can see the frustrations a lot of schools might have with the "money" programs in their conferences pushing around their weight. Mizzou seems to have made it clear for years that they would be happy to listen to the Big X. The Big X may have a different revenue sharing system, I don't know how they do it, and they don't have the state of Texas thinking they invented football and Oklahoma thinking they perfected it but I highly doubt that Indiana and Illinois have an equal influence on conference decisions with OSU, Mich, Penn State, etc. Mizzou may be leaving one situation to enter more of the same.

    If CU goes to the PAC 10 I think we will see a lot of the same situation with USC and UCLA pulling strings as well, it may not be as pronounced or visible but if they have a PAC 10 title game what are the odds of it being outside of southern California with great frequency. If they start their own TV network who is going to get the prime time slots most frequently?

    As to your comment on pure economics determining competition, it is clear that money and support can be closely related to success on the field. At the same time other factors can play in. Look at the recent failings of aTm, which is in money and support competitive with OU and kNU but has not done much on the field for a decade. At the same time (with a little help from T. Boone Pickens) Okie State had a better season than big brother OU last year. It does show over time though that money and support more often translate to ongoing success on the field and vice versa.
     
  23. ScottyBuff

    ScottyBuff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2008
    Messages:
    2,619
    Likes Received:
    91
    Most certainly that is the case, but they are sitting right next to Illinois and Indiana who are essentially the same "once-in-a-decade" type programs (maybe the Hoosiers are not even that), and they are cashing big time checks.

    I'm not saying the Tigers have a right to gripe, especially when the main crux of their "resentment" is that the Big 12 didn't "go to bat" for them in the Orange Bowl and the Insight Bowl (with Kansas and Iowa State getting those bids). If the Tigers actually traveled halfway decent to bowl games they would have been invited in a heart-beat. To me, Missouri just wants to "hide" in the Big Ten by getting big checks and being a middle-of-the-pack school athletically. Then they can sell their "Big Ten/CIC membership" pitch to improve their academic prestige and research, just like Illinois, Indiana, and Minnesota; while having a flush budget in the athletic department.

    The revenue distribution argument is certainly one that I can agree with, but "equal sharing" should also require better member contributions (looking at Iowa State and Baylor here).
     
  24. OKCBuff

    OKCBuff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2009
    Messages:
    1,547
    Likes Received:
    48

    Good points.

    And I hate to add to that, but if the state of Colorado was where Missouri is and CU was where Mizzou is, the Buff administration would probably want to bolt to the Big 1T1en for the same reasons you reeled off.
     
  25. UrbanaBuff

    UrbanaBuff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    1,270
    Likes Received:
    13
    Bingo. If you were Mizzou, would you rather associate with Iowa, Wisconsin & Purdue... or K-State, Texas Tech & Oklahoma? This is exactly what the MU president said a few months ago. Sports being held equal, the Big Ten schools have an advantage in almost every other facet. The Big Ten puts academics first, the Big XII puts athletics first. Under the former scenario, you always win. Its an "arms race" in which you will have multiple winners. Even if Indiana goes 2-10, they still have a Top 10-15 business school and more athletic revenue than powers such as Oklahoma. Kind of ironic, huh? Mizzou wants to swim upstream, and they fashion themselves as an academic up-and-comer. I commend them for making decisions scholastically rather than just athletically (unlike most of their Big XII brethren).

    The Pac 10 is similar to the Big Ten in this regard, which is why CU shouldn't think twice about leaving.

     
    Last edited: May 16, 2010
  26. OKCBuff

    OKCBuff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2009
    Messages:
    1,547
    Likes Received:
    48
    One other thing to add: When Mizzou DOES have a big year they'd win the Big Ten and go to the Rose Bowl. That's a huge thing obviously. So I think Mizzou would be cool with 5th place finishes in the Big 10 and then an occasional Rose Bowl trip every few years. Plus, the Big 10 has GREAT bowl tie-ins all the way around.
     
  27. UrbanaBuff

    UrbanaBuff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    1,270
    Likes Received:
    13
    And we can just as easily change out Mizzou with CU. Almost all of the things Mizzou has on its side, CU does too, but with the Pac 10. We are much better off associating with Cal, UW and Arizona than our old Big XII mates. We seem to be one of the few "no-brainers" in all of this expansion talk. Now let's just hope that the Pac jumps on the expansion train after all.

     
  28. CarolinaBuff

    CarolinaBuff Weekend Poster Club Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    18,650
    Likes Received:
    523
    RE: MtnBuff

    I won't disagree that it's always been about money, but nowadays it's much more about money than it used to be.
     

Share This Page