More Merger Talk

wardly · January 16, 2012

I suppose it could have been but people have to realize that UTSA won't be in the FBS until 2014. Expansion talk that would include them in an above entry-level conference is way premature.

my post was a weak attempt at sarcasism, but i do appreciate the information. does the 2014 date apply to Texas State as well?

playoffpush · January 16, 2012

I suppose it could have been but people have to realize that UTSA won't be in the FBS until 2014. Expansion talk that would include them in an above entry-level conference is way premature.

not sure where you got your info but they will be fbs in 2012 just cant go to a bowl.

GrayEagle · January 17, 2012

http://www.ncaa.com/news/ncaa/2011-01-19/new-rules-protect-wac-auto-bids'>http://www.ncaa.com/news/ncaa/2011-01-19/new-rules-protect-wac-auto-bids

not sure where you got your info but they will be fbs in 2012 just cant go to a bowl.

Here is the info on that.

http://www.ncaa.com/news/ncaa/2011-01-19/new-rules-protect-wac-auto-bids'>http://www.ncaa.com/news/ncaa/2011-01-19/new-rules-protect-wac-auto-bids

According to the release Texas State becomes fully eligible in 2013; UTSA a year later. UT-San Antonio hasn't yet played a single FBS opponent and I believe only two FCS teams. It's true that there has been speculation about their joining the MWC but I think that it was mere speculation. Now they could be a viable candidate for the Sun Belt.

Arkstfan · January 17, 2012

East Carolina has publicly campaigned for the Big East for decades. Wonderful strategy. I wonder how many FAU recruits have been handed laminated copies of FAU to Big East statements by Howard and told to look at how trustworthy he was.

This is a presidential level decision. Public campaigns for membership exist solely for the fans of the school to get people to shut the hell up on message boards and talk radio and to create the impression of activity. They serve no legitimate purpose in reaching the desired goal. If they don't work then the cost is people bitching about the league they were already in.

By all reasonable speculation, the Alliance is either going to be an 18 or 20 team league. The math is really simple here. There are 9 CUSA and 7 MWC schools (8 in football and 8 all-sports if Hawaii eventually goes all-sports). If they choose to go to 18, there is one slot and it is almost certainly in the west. USU sits in the middle of a big hole in the MWC.

If they go to 20 then they might take 2 central or eastern time zone schools. Sitting on top of the wish list is Temple. High caliber hoops, revived football, and in the fourth largest TV market in the country.

The other spot becomes interesting. La.Tech because they are easy to take (ie. no harm to any viable league)? UNT to get back into the 5th largest TV market? FIU to get into the 16th largest TV market and stay connected with Florida?

It becomes as much about who is against you as who is for you. My money says Tulane will oppose La.Tech and I'm not positive Rice or Tulsa will support UNT. FIU has no natural opposition. UAB sits almost halfway between UNT and FIU and they are much more likely to support a Florida school because they are more likely to sign Florida kids than Texas kids. You can go in figuring ECU, UAB, Marshall are going to favor FIU. The question is who is the advocate for UNT?

Harry · January 17, 2012

All the turnover with the AD's probably doesn't help in terms of getting a barometer.

wardly · January 18, 2012

East Carolina has publicly campaigned for the Big East for decades. Wonderful strategy. I wonder how many FAU recruits have been handed laminated copies of FAU to Big East statements by Howard and told to look at how trustworthy he was.

This is a presidential level decision. Public campaigns for membership exist solely for the fans of the school to get people to shut the hell up on message boards and talk radio and to create the impression of activity. They serve no legitimate purpose in reaching the desired goal. If they don't work then the cost is people bitching about the league they were already in.

By all reasonable speculation, the Alliance is either going to be an 18 or 20 team league. The math is really simple here. There are 9 CUSA and 7 MWC schools (8 in football and 8 all-sports if Hawaii eventually goes all-sports). If they choose to go to 18, there is one slot and it is almost certainly in the west. USU sits in the middle of a big hole in the MWC.

If they go to 20 then they might take 2 central or eastern time zone schools. Sitting on top of the wish list is Temple. High caliber hoops, revived football, and in the fourth largest TV market in the country.

The other spot becomes interesting. La.Tech because they are easy to take (ie. no harm to any viable league)? UNT to get back into the 5th largest TV market? FIU to get into the 16th largest TV market and stay connected with Florida?

It becomes as much about who is against you as who is for you. My money says Tulane will oppose La.Tech and I'm not positive Rice or Tulsa will support UNT. FIU has no natural opposition. UAB sits almost halfway between UNT and FIU and they are much more likely to support a Florida school because they are more likely to sign Florida kids than Texas kids. You can go in figuring ECU, UAB, Marshall are going to favor FIU. The question is who is the advocate for UNT?

great question! i think Tulas would, but we really don't have a "sponsor". ECU is vocal in demanding more east coast schools, to the point that their chancellor stated App State would be a great addition in they decided to move up. don't know how much power ECU has since they have bags packed in case "football only" slot opens up in Big East. speaking of which, Hawaii wants to leave all other sports in Big West because of travel costs.

risinggreen · January 18, 2012

Apparently we need to add and fund a top notch basketweaving program to our highway billboard advertisements. Really distressing that we cannot find a way to keep our top two high school recruits eligible for even one semester.

cwb · January 18, 2012

Apparently we need to add and fund a top notch basketweaving program to our highway billboard advertisements. Really distressing that we cannot find a way to keep our top two high school recruits eligible for even one semester.

While I did not hit you with a -1, I would like to make it clear that basket weaving is a lot harder than you might think.

forevereagle · January 18, 2012

great question! i think Tulas would, but we really don't have a "sponsor". ECU is vocal in demanding more east coast schools, to the point that their chancellor stated App State would be a great addition in they decided to move up. don't know how much power ECU has since they have bags packed in case "football only" slot opens up in Big East. speaking of which, Hawaii wants to leave all other sports in Big West because of travel costs.

If I am a member of that conference, ECU could take their demands and shove 'em. Anyone who actively campaigns to another conference doesn't get to complain about the future of their current one.

Green Mean · January 18, 2012

If I am a member of that conference, ECU could take their demands and shove 'em. Anyone who actively campaigns to another conference doesn't get to complain about the future of their current one.

To a certain degree you're right but CUSA needs ECU as well. I think it goes both ways.

oldguystudent · January 18, 2012

Here's the conference I want. I would make concerted effort to travel to each road game:

Nevada (gambling, beers in the stands, easy cab ride to hotel)

UNLV (see nevada)

NMSU (hatch chiles in everything!)

UTEP (I love El Paso. Amazing Mexican food. Crazy fan base. Extra lithium in the water supply to make you happy)

LaLa (apparently the best tailgating anywhere and beer in the stands)

Tulane (gambling, convenient downtown location, possibly beer in the stands?)

Tulsa (pretty easy drive, and if we're in conference, we've got to eventually beat them at something right? But take TX > 3.2 beer with you)

Rice (easy drive, nifty old english lettering )

Ark St (I think somebody told me Jonesboro night life is insane)

UTSA (They may be passing us by, but I've always enjoyed the river walk)

SMU (after 100 years, isn't it time to bury the hatchet? Right in the backs of the necks of the ponies?)

UNT (because nothing says home field like sharing a Holiday Inn Express breakfast with 150 rabid OU fans)

shaft · January 19, 2012

Really your fantasy conference has New Mexico State? It is the off season so I guess we can start a separate dream conference thread.

All AD's want the same thing in a new partner. If they are going to split the pie one more way they want a team that brings something economic to the table. That means things like market size or cost containment.

oldguystudent · January 19, 2012

Really your fantasy conference has New Mexico State? It is the off season so I guess we can start a separate dream conference thread.

All AD's want the same thing in a new partner. If they are going to split the pie one more way they want a team that brings something economic to the table. That means things like market size or cost containment.

A two-part answer to your question:

1) NMSU because I wanted to get 12 teams in the conference and some of them are a bit of a stretch with geography on their side.

2) I rattled off those teams with no relation whatsoever to economic reality, but rather to places I like to visit (except maybe Tulsa).

2.5) I would think by the parenthetical comments on each school that a reasonable man would see the frivolity with which I posted, thus not necessitating a "REALLY!?!?!?111?!?!?" type of response.

2.75) UTEP and NMSU are so close to each other that they have reciprocal in-state tuition between residents of the El Paso and Las Cruces areas. They share the same television market.

untjim1995 · January 19, 2012

Look, I get it. A lot goes on behind closed doors. But NOTHING regarding NT has been mentioned. No blogs of questionable repute spouting hearsay or scuttlebutt. No individual blogger floating a rumor he heard at a pub from his "inside source." Nothing.

If we'll all recall, the Texas to Pac12 rumors were out there LONG before anything was official...and that didn't even come true! SMU's move was "leaked" way before anything was official. There is nothing, nada, zip out there about NT making a move. Not even a story that RV or Rawlins can neither confirm nor deny.

Where there is smoke there is fire. As it is I'm looking directly at the house and don't even see a kid playing with matches.

You know, I think this is a great post for several reasons. Everyone keeps saying that everything big in a deal gets settled privately, so its good that we don't ever hear anything from UNT regarding this merger and to let people know that we want to got to CUSA/MWC. But, I like it when an AD comes out and says, "Yeah, we want to move upward and this is why we should be considered. Your conference would be much better off with us." Basically, what SMU did and what La Tech is doing.

But here's another thought about us being quiet about it all. Maybe, just maybe, we have been quiet and aren't making a fuss about all of this because of one simple reason: we have already been told that we don't fit in these conference's plans for expansion. Obviously, I think that would be a mistake by those conferences if that has been made clear, but I wonder if that hasn't already been made crystal clear by Craig Thompson and Britton Banowsky. Part of me thinks that if we were going to be in CUSA, not only would there be "smoke" around this story, I would think there would be a full-fledged fire in the Metroplex about it. Someone from CUSA would leak out something to the media or would have been screaming from the rooftop about us being a perfect fit for membership.

I am getting more convinced everyday that we are going to be SBC members for a looonnnggg time to come...

tylermeangreen · January 19, 2012

But here's another thought about us being quiet about it all. Maybe, just maybe, we have been quiet and aren't making a fuss about all of this because of one simple reason: we have already been told that we don't fit in these conference's plans for expansion.

Or better yet - Maybe, just maybe, we have been quiet and are not making a fuss about all of this because of one simple reason: we have already been told that we DO fit in these conference's plans for expansion.

I mean......that possibility is just as feasible as yours, and it sure does make me sleep better at night!

untjim1995 · January 20, 2012

Or better yet - Maybe, just maybe, we have been quiet and are not making a fuss about all of this because of one simple reason: we have already been told that we DO fit in these conference's plans for expansion.

I mean......that possibility is just as feasible as yours, and it sure does make me sleep better at night!

The optimist in me loves your thought on this--and would help me sleep better, too!!

The pessimist in me suggests what I posted earlier about not being included.

The realist in me says, "This is North Texas. Nothing in terms of conference affiliation or expansion ever goes the way we want or need it to go to build our program upward significantly."

shaft · January 21, 2012

Saw an interesting thread on another board.

Said the UNLV AD was on the radio talking about a full merger with 18 teams, maybe even 22 or 24 teams.

GrayEagle · January 21, 2012

After wrestling with a lot of figures I will make the following prediction for the merged conference:

There will be 20 all-sports teams (possibly expanded to 24 in the near future. There will be two football and ten basketball games with teams from the other division.

West

Hawaii

Fresno State

San Jose State

Nevada

UNLV

Wyoming

Colorado State

Air Force

New Mexico

UTEP

East

Tulsa

North Texas

Rice

Memphis

Tulane

Southern Miss

UAB

East Carolina

Marshall

Temple

The above adds the #s 4, 5, and 6 TV markets to the existing teams, giving the conference a much larger bargaining chip in their television negotiations. Not only that but the three additions are very large universities with hundreds of thousand alumni each.

shaft · January 22, 2012

GrayEagle's theory has some trouble with it.

1. No one one inside is talking 20 teams.

2. If the MWC side wanted SJSU they would have already taken them.

Last year the MWC took a look at Utah State and San Jose State and the word was they liked USU, weren't sold on SJSU and choose not to expand.

3. The Big East is looking at Temple.

All signs are pointing to an all sports merger with 18 teams.

The 12th spot in CUSA was between UTEP/LA Tech/UNT so it stand the reason those are the two schools in the running for the 18th spot in the merger if there's a Eastern spot.

GrayEagle · January 22, 2012

GrayEagle's theory has some trouble with it.

1. No one one inside is talking 20 teams.
2. If the MWC side wanted SJSU they would have already taken them.
Last year the MWC took a look at Utah State and San Jose State and the word was they liked USU, weren't sold on SJSU and choose not to expand.
3. The Big East is looking at Temple.

All signs are pointing to an all sports merger with 18 teams.
The 12th spot in CUSA was between UTEP/LA Tech/UNT so it stand the reason those are the two schools in the running for the 18th spot in the merger if there's a Eastern spot.

1. I didn't see any "inside" quotes but with a little trouble I can find a quote about there being 20-24 teams.

2. Last year they had Boise and San Diego State and hadn't settled on how the alliance is to be structured.

3. The Big East is looking at Temple but there are two problems with that. One is that Villanova is blocking Temple because Temple holds the college stadium rights to Lincoln Financial Field and won't allow Villanova to play there. It's the only place in the area large enough for the Big East other than Franklin Field and Penn hasn't allowed other college teams to use their stadium either. The second reason is that there are no vacancies in the Big East. And, as you said about San Jose State, they had a chance to take Temple when they chose San Diego State.

San Jose State has far more TV households than the Utags. They are nearly twice the size of Utah State. SJSU is more accessible than Logan. On my list of all-time prestige franchises (actually it's the average of five computer lists) San Jose is #86; Utah State is #92. Romney Stadium only holds 25,500. While 30,000 is no longer the criteria for FBS membership the Mountain West hasn't taken a member with less. They are virtually dead even on revenue and attendance. This time out people watching TV is more important assuming that other items are near equal. San Jose State was admitted to the WAC before Utah State because they had more to offer then and they do now.

Edited January 22, 2012 by GrayEagle

MeanGreen61 · January 22, 2012

Mountain West board thread

"Best serious alignment configuration I've seen yet"

http://www.mwcboard.com/www/forums/index.php?showtopic=38686&pid=762810&st=0&#entry762810

Edited January 22, 2012 by MeanGreen61

shaft · January 22, 2012

I like the way the mwc board quotes our posts. Maybe we just merge message boards.

VideoEagle · January 23, 2012

I like the way the mwc board quotes our posts. Maybe we just merge message boards.

OF course they are quoting our posts. We quote theirs plus one from other message boards. Everyone has to quote message board posts as no one has any real information.