Mountain West prepared to Move

Harry · November 3, 2011

Mountain West Commissioner Craig Thompson said Utah State and San Jose State would be considered as potential new members for his league if Boise State or Air Force leave for the Big East Conference.

"If we were to find out that people are leaving, I’d make my recommendation to the board," Thompson said Wednesday by phone. "I have a recommendation for the board that includes several contingencies. I have not sent it but am prepared to send it if necessary."

Read More:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/nov/02/mountain-west-options-would-include-san-jose/

UNTflyer · November 3, 2011

Utah State:

All time record: 487-501-31

Record over past few years:

2005: 3-8

2006: 1-11

2007: 2-10

2008: 3-9

2009: 4-8

2010: 4-8

It's in friggin' Logan, Utah. 50,000 people and is in the #32 media market already split between BYU and Univ. of Utah.

I don't get it.

Edited November 3, 2011 by UNTflyer

untbowler · November 3, 2011

Utah State:

All time record: 487-501-31

Record over past few years:

2005: 3-8
2006: 1-11
2007: 2-10
2008: 3-9
2009: 4-8
2010: 4-8

It's in friggin' Logan, Utah. 50,000 people and is in the #32 media market already split between BYU and Univ. of Utah.

I don't get it.

They fit the MWC profile and they have had strong basketball.

Now SJSU makes no sense

PlummMeanGreen · November 3, 2011

Utah State:

All time record: 487-501-31

Record over past few years:

2005: 3-8
2006: 1-11
2007: 2-10
2008: 3-9
2009: 4-8
2010: 4-8

It's in friggin' Logan, Utah. 50,000 people and is in the #32 media market already split between BYU and Univ. of Utah.

I don't get it.

Re-alignment is not supposed to make sense. Soon you'll have Boise State football in the Big East and the rest of their sports in the Big West! :lol: How much sense does that make? :blink:

Utah State owes North Texas a big favor as we campaigned and got them into the Sun Belt when they were in a tight lurch and had no place to go and were just out there hanging on a limb. I remember their officials saying "we owe you North Texas." Well, it's collecting time on all favors, Aggies! LOL!

1 or 2 schools came into CUSA back in the early 2000's with very long multi-year football season losing streaks and continued them a few years once in CUSA. So our 7 seasons in a row should not be a factor at all comparatively.

I am just confused on this CUSA/MWC alliance business as I've heard it is only and alliance while others say it is a merger.

Seems CUSA Commish' Banowsky even said they would add schools alliance or no alliance. CUSA/MWC Alliance wanting to add the Big East to that alliance was not a well thought out idea since what did the AQ Big East stand to gain from that?

GMG!

Edited November 3, 2011 by PlummMeanGreen

herdfan1rh · November 3, 2011

The CUSA/MWC deal is an "Alliance" not a merger. Each league will play its own schedule and determine a conference champion. The two league champs will then play each other.

If the MWC loses two, they need to add two to have 10 members. If CUSA loses three, they only need to add one to get to 10 members.

My guess would be that the two 10-team leagues would keep the alliance beginning next season. Then possibly look to expand again in 2013 to get to 24 teams. If that happens and both leagues go to 12 teams, the WAC will cease to exist.

playoffpush · November 3, 2011

SJSU makes about as much sense as UNT does, bad football in a huge market. I don't really think we should be putting down SJSU or Utah State. If you watch Utah State play it is pretty obvious that they are an up and coming football team. Comcast wants Utah State so they can justify keeping the Mountain on cable in Utah.

Edited November 3, 2011 by playoffpush

MeanGreenTeeth · November 3, 2011

Some of the road games would be awful (Reno, ugh), but I would mind excuses to go to Fort Collins, Vegas, Hawaii, and San Diego.

Green Mean · November 3, 2011

I can understand them wanting to add Utah State and SJSU just from a blueprint and geographical sense. As for USU it seems everytime I see them on TV their stadium always has good attendence. Large media market or not they seem to have decent attendence and not to mention a great basketball program.

playoffpush · November 3, 2011

It doesn't bother me that UNT is not being mentioned. CUSA and MWC commissioners are working together so maybe CUSA is going to take us. They aren't going to fight each other for teams.

herdfan1rh · November 3, 2011

Like I mentioned above, I think there are going to be two rounds of Alliance expansion. NT will be a candidate at some point. If not for 2012, possibly for 2013-14, whenever the Alliance decides to kill the Wac and go to 24 teams.

VideoEagle · November 3, 2011

Like I mentioned above, I think there are going to be two rounds of Alliance expansion. NT will be a candidate at some point. If not for 2012, possibly for 2013-14, whenever the Alliance decides to kill the Wac and go to 24 teams.

The alliance is probably dead now. See Arkstfans comment in another thread. To summarize, the NCAA has recommended "do not pass" on the two league championship. If it.is a "new league" then they have no seat at the NCAA council. Plus, they new legue would be negotiating new TV contracts without the top programs from both MTW and CUSA.

Harry · November 3, 2011

The alliance is probably dead now. See Arkstfans comment in another thread. To summarize, the NCAA has recommended "do not pass" on the two league championship. If it.is a "new league" then they have no seat at the NCAA council. Plus, they new league would be negotiating new TV contracts without the top programs from both MTW and CUSA.

I think everyone is in agreement that the alliance has little value now. It was devised to keep the CUSA and Mountain West teams being invited from the Big East from leaving. It provides no value to CUSA with SMU, UCF and Houston's exit combined with Boise and Air Force leaving the Mountain West.

greenminer · November 3, 2011

Further evidence that we have no clue what is being discussed behind these doors, and that your plot to start another 5 threads on realignment by tomorrow is silly.

herdfan1rh · November 3, 2011

Have to disagree here, the alliance was started to challeng for an AQ spot in 2014. The ncaa has said it would "likely allow" a 14th game in the plus one conference championship format. Also it allows the leagues to work together on a tv deal (22 teams in 15 states). And for the same reason, it gives the two leagues combined political pull. (Legislators from Wv, Ky, Oh, Cn and Nc have all been working publicly to get their teams in the best possible conference).

I think the dream is that the Bcs adds a game in 2014 (jerry jones is pushing for it to be the cotton bowl in his house) and thus adds two more Bcs bids. One for the Alliance champ and an at-large (basically a third sec team).

VideoEagle · November 3, 2011

A

Have to disagree here, the alliance was started to challeng for an AQ spot in 2014. The ncaa has said it would "likely allow" a 14th game in the plus one conference championship format. Also it allows the leagues to work together on a tv deal (22 teams in 15 states). And for the same reason, it gives the two leagues combined political pull. (Legislators from Wv, Ky, Oh, Cn and Nc have all been working publicly to get their teams in the best possible conference).

I think the dream is that the Bcs adds a game in 2014 (jerry jones is pushing for it to be the cotton bowl in his house) and thus adds two more Bcs bids. One for the Alliance champ and an at-large (basically a third sec team).

Have to try to find the link from early fall, but at the point there was support on the NCAA football council for cutting back to just 11 games. Plus they definitely have recommended voting against allowing conferences without a conference championship to hold a multi-conference championship. Then to revise the BCS deal, every conference involved must give approval and I can't imagine the MAC, WAC or Sbc Doing so. Nor do the Big Six have any motivation to remove a potential BCS game for themselves.

GrayEagle · November 3, 2011

I am truly disappointed in Craig Thompson.

He cries about the Big East taking his teams after what he's done to the WAC. They're only taking two, not the entire conference as he did. Now he's considering taking two more so that he can have ten before any other moves.

The MWC is the primary beneficiary of a three team alliance. He doesn't have 12 teams for a conference playoff and has little to choose from to try to garner that many. So he tries to form a 36 or whatever team league to give his members some sort of access to the top BCS bowls. Why would the Big East even consider that when they have an automatic bid and access to any of the teams in the other two leagues?

Then consider Conference USA. They have a contract for their championship game from when the conference consisted of 12 members. They will now be reduced to nine but they have several strong candidates from among the Sun Belt and the WAC and could quickly return to 12 again and fulfill their contract. With no agreement that the winner is guaranteed a berth in bowl championship, what's the incentive for CUSA?

This alliance thing seemed doomed from the start and why did Commissioner Thompson try to sell it? Was he looking to take over all three leagues?