CougarCorner
Sign in
Archived Topic

Boise State Expansion almost a Done Deal?

by Mars · 10/30/2009

Sponsored Advertisementad content
M
Mars
snoscythe wrote:
I would do Tulsa/Houston over UNR simply to given TCU added incentive to stick around. If the PAC-10 or Big Least ever expand, the domino effect could put TCU in the Big XII.

I prefer UTEP, a Texas team in the Mountain time zone with a strong basketball history.



Besides, if a BCS conference comes calling, no one in the MWC is staying, no matter what. Chris Hill reiterated that this week.
S
Schmoe
I'd say BSU is the obvious choice. After that, it's kind of a crapshoot. Houston and Tulsa have been playing well the last several years, but will they continue? Fresno St. seems to have fallen off a little in recent years, and I just don't see Hawaii or Nevada with any staying power and think they'd ultimately drop our SOS each year.
I
imuakahuku
snoscythe wrote:
"WEST":

Fresno State - SDSU

UNM - UNLV

BYU - Utah



"MOUNTAIN":

Boise State - Wyoming

CSU - Air Force

Tulsa/Houston - TCU



I would do Tulsa/Houston over UNR simply to given TCU added incentive to stick around. If the PAC-10 or Big Least ever expand, the domino effect could put TCU in the Big XII. A travel partner could go a long ways to making them more comfy in the MWC with a natural rivalry (but not someone like SMU who would drag down the whole conference in all sports).


I agree with Houston or Tulsa over UNR. I like the seperation too. The big four have to be split and no team should play all four ( three when it comes to the big four) in the same season. e.g BYU doesn't play the other big four in the same season. It would undermine the conference if they kept knocking each other out of the polls.
G
Guest
Florwood wrote:
The real question, in my mind, is who do we invite in a +3 along with Boise State? Tulsa? Houston? Fresno State? Nevada? And what would the alignment be? As of today, right now, I'd go after Houston.


Houston's basketball team has become decent recently. No NCAA tournament appearances since 1992, but 20+ wins three of the last five years. And certainly Rose should enjoy playing his alma mater.



The biggest thing that makes me cringe about Houston though, is having red cougars in the conference.



http://graphics.fansonly.com/schools/hou/graphics/hou-07-header-logo-2.gif" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%"> :o


Can we force them to change their mascot... Lets make it a term of joining.
M
Mars
imuakahuku wrote:
I agree with Houston or Tulsa over UNR.

I know I can't convince anyone against their will to like Nevada as the 12th MWC team, but here is some of what I like about the Wolfpack:



-High level men's basketball team each and every year

-Improved football currently (#1 rushing team in the nation this year, 2nd best team in the WAC over the past 4 seasons, has beat UNLV 4 years in a row, almost all blow-outs)

-Provides a solid in-conference rivalry and travel partner with UNLV (Battle for the Cannon in football, and a crazy bball rivalry)

-Geographically closer/cheaper travel to the majority of the MWC than any Texas/Oklahoma/Hawaii school

-Reno is closer to the Sacramento/Northern California TV market/recruiting grounds than even Fresno State

-Best academics in the WAC
Sponsored Advertisementad content
4
49erCoug
Mars wrote:
I would do Tulsa/Houston over UNR simply to given TCU added incentive to stick around. If the PAC-10 or Big Least ever expand, the domino effect could put TCU in the Big XII.

I prefer UTEP, a Texas team in the Mountain time zone with a strong basketball history.



Besides, if a BCS conference comes calling, no one in the MWC is staying, no matter what. Chris Hill reiterated that this week.


There is a guy I work with... who claims (I take everything he says with at least one grain of salt) that Utah will be to the Pac 10 and BYU will be going to what is now the Big 12.. I doubt that it is true.. but he claims to have an uncle who works for the University of Colorado..
M
Mars
po_pocoug wrote:
There is a guy I work with... who claims (I take everything he says with at least one grain of salt) that Utah will be to the Pac 10 and BYU will be going to what is now the Big 12.. I doubt that it is true.. but he claims to have an uncle who works for the University of Colorado..

The PAC-10 has a new Commish who was hired to find ways to make the PAC-10 more money. One of the ideas he has been seriously looking at is expanding to 12 teams, starting a conference championship game, re-negotiating their TV contract, and possibly creating their own sports network. And the two schools stated to be the most likely targets are Colorado and Utah. The preferred targets, Texas and Texas A&M, are out of reach still, of course.



BUT... The PAC-10 needs a unanimous vote to expand, all 10 schools. The 4 Washington/Oregon schools won't, IMO, for fear of losing yearly SoCal recruiting games (@ USC or @ UCLA). And schools like Cal-Berkley and Stanford don't want to rub elbows with the unwashed of the world.



In short, I just don't see anything ever really happening there.
S
Schmoe
I would love it if we were in the Big XII and the pukes were in the PAC-10. It won't happen, but I can dream (I think we're a perfect fit for the Big XII North and would compete very well there).
C
cscoug
I cannot conceive any financial argument for going to 12 teams. Expansion is all about the BCS and its money while not negatively affecting other sports too much. The only real shot at BCS inclusion is through the 4- year cycle evaluation. That's why adding BSU in 1 year makes so much sense. Any other expansion models are cumbersome, dilute the cash even more, and do nothing to help with BCS inclusion. Unless we lose a conference member to another BCS conference, I can't see why or how we would expand beyond BSU. Adding BSU in 1 year may end up being the culmination of the perfect storm to get us into the BCS.
S
scott715
I would take 12 teams for a BCS bid. Yes you split it more ways but that is a lot of money to split. I would take our 9 plus the top team from the WAC, Conf USA and Navy then split it 12 ways.
Sponsored Advertisementad content
S
scott715
Then consider this. The cable operators in those conferences would have to pick up the Mtn which would give more tv revenue to the conference plus I might get it where I live. I would like that.
B
BYUROCKS
When I asked Tom Holmoe about this he said something like, I can't say anything official, but I like 10 nice round number, and then he said he liked BSU also
4
49erCoug
Mars wrote:
There is a guy I work with... who claims (I take everything he says with at least one grain of salt) that Utah will be to the Pac 10 and BYU will be going to what is now the Big 12.. I doubt that it is true.. but he claims to have an uncle who works for the University of Colorado..

The PAC-10 has a new Commish who was hired to find ways to make the PAC-10 more money. One of the ideas he has been seriously looking at is expanding to 12 teams, starting a conference championship game, re-negotiating their TV contract, and possibly creating their own sports network. And the two schools stated to be the most likely targets are Colorado and Utah. The preferred targets, Texas and Texas A&M, are out of reach still, of course.



BUT... The PAC-10 needs a unanimous vote to expand, all 10 schools. The 4 Washington/Oregon schools won't, IMO, for fear of losing yearly SoCal recruiting games (@ USC or @ UCLA). And schools like Cal-Berkley and Stanford don't want to rub elbows with the unwashed of the world.



In short, I just don't see anything ever really happening there.


I would love to go to the Big 12.. I agree with Schmoe.. I think we fit right in.. We could take Colorado's spot.. and compete nicely there
S
Schmoe
Glad you agree with me, I got a ticket yesterday, maybe you could take care of that for me since we seem to be getting along... :mrgreen:
C
cscoug
scott715 wrote:
I would take 12 teams for a BCS bid. Yes you split it more ways but that is a lot of money to split. I would take our 9 plus the top team from the WAC, Conf USA and Navy then split it 12 ways.


But how does 12 teams make us more likely to get the BCS bid than 10 teams? My opinion is that it doesn't. There is only 1 team that will help us get that bid, and that is BSU. The reason that it is only BSU is because they are the only ones that help us in any measure in each of the criteria used to evaluate who is considered an BCS conference. Fresno St, Hawaii, Houston, Tulsa, Nevada, etc. no of these will cause a perceptible increase in that evaluation. I really believe that evaluation is our only shot for a BCS bid, short of getting an invite to an existing BCS conference. That would be great, but....
Sponsored Advertisementad content
J
jonnylingo
Lawboy wrote:
The real question, in my mind, is who do we invite in a +3 along with Boise State? Tulsa? Houston? Fresno State? Nevada? And what would the alignment be? As of today, right now, I'd go after Houston. I know the Utes love recruiting there, and that is a nice market to add. Other team is up for grabs. FSU?



North

BYU

Utah

Wyoming

BSU

CSU

Fresno State



South

SDSU

UNM

AFA

TCU

Houston

UNLV



Works for football and hoops balance.


sheeesh, under that set up it sure would be good to be tcu. they would have a cakewalk to the championship game while it would be extremely difficult to make it to that game in the north.
J
jonnylingo
Why expand so dramatically? Can't we just get rid of someone really crappy and put Boise in in their place?



I still say that we should NOT add Boise unless it pretty much make the mwc a lock for an auto bid. if it doesn't it does nothing to help us or our quest for inclusion. I would say it hurts.



no reason to add one more person to make it harder for one of our teams to make it to a bcs game. we have three very good teams already who aside from bsu are going to be favored for a bcs bowl every year.
S
snoscythe
jonnylingo wrote:
Why expand so dramatically? Can't we just get rid of someone really crappy and put Boise in in their place?


The MWC cannot kick out any of it's initial members. They have to consent, which means we have to buy them out. No one is going to accept a buy-out if a BCS invite for the conference is remotely possible.
J
jonnylingo
snoscythe wrote:
Why expand so dramatically? Can't we just get rid of someone really crappy and put Boise in in their place?


The MWC cannot kick out any of it's initial members. They have to consent, which means we have to buy them out. No one is going to accept a buy-out if a BCS invite for the conference is remotely possible.


Can anyone who is not a 'never-nude' confirm that? :lol:
G
Guest
jonnylingo wrote:
jonnylingo wrote:
Why expand so dramatically? Can't we just get rid of someone really crappy and put Boise in in their place?


The MWC cannot kick out any of it's initial members. They have to consent, which means we have to buy them out. No one is going to accept a buy-out if a BCS invite for the conference is remotely possible.


Can anyone who is not a 'never-nude' confirm that? :lol:


Confirmed, the MWC charter does not provide for a way, other than 100% consensus, for an original member to be removed.
Page 2 of 3
This is an archived topic from the original CougarCorner forum. New replies are not accepted.