M-Day approaches for Mountain West, CUSA

[Harry]

The potential alliance/consortium/merger between the Mountain West and Conference USA hardly grabs headlines the way realignment at the BCS level has over the past 20 months or so.

But in terms of impacting the greatest number of student athletes — and they’re what college athletics is all about, right … right? — the future of the MWC/CUSA is far more important than whether the ACC expands again or the Big 12 stays at 10.

The situation directly involves the 16 planned future members of the MWC/CUSA super-conference and another 16-18 in the reconfigured WAC and Sun Belt, plus FCS schools considering moves to FBS.

It’s a big, big deal to a lot of schools and the 85 current and near-future scholarship football players at those schools.

I’ve checked with a handful of sources in the past 10 days, and the consensus is that we’ll know the details of the MWC/CUSA merger within the next month.

And it will be a merger — a full-blown, one-league-folded-into-another merger.

Based on my admittedly rudimentary understanding of the NCAA’s revenue-distribution model, the two leagues must merge in order for the schools to get the units (i.e., money) they’re owed from past participation in the NCAA Tournament.

Read More: http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2012/03/20/fbs-realignment-m-day-approaches-for-mountain-west-cusa-and-what-that-means-for-the-wac-sun-belt-and-others/

[Harry]

According to Jon Wilner of the San Jose Mercury News — and, really, Jon does a remarkable job with realignment news — several sources have come to the consensus that the two conferences will essentially fold into one for all sports. The details of this merger will reportedly be revealed sometime in the next month.

Wilner adds that the reason for the merger is so the two sides can receive money owed to them from past NCAA tournaments.

The next issue becomes size, which would be determined by what generates the most TV revenue. The TV contract has been, after all, the driving force behind realignment. The C-USA/MWC merger could proceed with the members it has available today — outside of those which have already announced they will be leaving for the Big 12 and Big East, obviously — or it could expand. In that case, it would almost certainly raid the WAC, which is already on life support, and/or the Sun Belt, which is considering its own expansion options under new commissioner Karl Benson.

That could leave both the Sun Belt and the WAC stranded similar to the way the Big East was when it became clear West Virginia would be leaving for the Big 12 this year before Temple filled the void.

Read more: http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/20/report-c-usamwc-merging-into-one-conference/

[Harry]

Jon Wilner a reporter who is following the Alliance pretty closely tweeted the following:

Jon Wilner

@wilnerhotline

MWC/CUSA officials considering half dozen xpansion candidates, including Utah State, San Jose State, UTSA, LaTech, N Tex and FIU

His twitter link is worth checking out: @wilnerhotline

[UNTexas]

I can see UNT, Utah State, FIU, and possibly LaTech. San Jose State I know nothing about.

However, UTSA is a new program. Which, according to their fans, doesn't even have practice facilities, much less a stadium. Outside of San Antonio TV markets, what exactly do they have to offer if it's true about their lack of facilities. Maybe my intel is wrong?

[Mean Green 93-98]

However, UTSA is a new program. Which, according to their fans, doesn't even have practice facilities, much less a stadium. Outside of San Antonio TV markets, what exactly do they have to offer if it's true about their lack of facilities. Maybe my intel is wrong?

They're in San Antonio. Of course, so is Trinity, and with a much longer history of playing football.

[SAGreenFan]

They're in San Antonio. Of course, so is Trinity, and with a much longer history of playing football.

This is true. My dad said Trinity hosted the Aggies when he was a student there.

[GL2Greatness]

I can see UNT, Utah State, FIU, and possibly LaTech. San Jose State I know nothing about.

However, UTSA is a new program. Which, according to their fans, doesn't even have practice facilities, much less a stadium. Outside of San Antonio TV markets, what exactly do they have to offer if it's true about their lack of facilities. Maybe my intel is wrong?

your intel is based on the failed idea that participation trophies actually matter

UTSA has a stadium and they have one that seats 60K and is domed and located in the heart of a major metro area with a lot of other things going on around it and with little sports competition college or pro for UTSA

Miami won their national championships playing in a stadium they don't own and no one cared they did not own it because "they don't own that" is a stupid argument that is meaningless to anyone not associated with a team that has accomplished little more than "we own our stadium"

USF has never owned their stadium and still does not and their all time record is 107-66 and they went from independent to CUSA to the Big East without owning a stadium....since joining the BE they are 4-2 on bowl games out of 7 years

they went 5-7 last year and their lowest attendance in a place "they don't own" was 39.5K in a metro area with 2 million less residents than DFW

I have never heard anyone anywhere get into huge "they don;t own their practice facilities" discussions either.....sure fans have discussions about "we need an indoor facility" or the like, but if the city, county, or state came along and built any program in the country a new indoor practice facility only a few dolts would say "we don't own it" especially if the team pretty much had carte blanche on the use of it which UTSA does with the Alamodome and that USF actually does not with the stadium where they average 40K fans per game in a 5-7 season

recruiting might be impacted by practice facilities, but only the quality of them not the question of ownership and I don't recall any conference realignment discussion I saw that ever dealt with who owns a practice facility or really even who had what practice facilities.....does the BE really care where Boise practices as long as they keep winning....the BE sure did not care that SDSU plays in a stadium they don't own and their attendance was just over 28K and their highest just over 57K

you should really get over the idea that a closet full of yearly participation trophies means anything to anyone because it really doesn't and neither does "ownership" of facilities

Edited March 21, 2012 by GL2Greatness

[UNTexas]

your intel is based on the failed idea that participation trophies actually matter

UTSA has a stadium and they have one that seats 60K and is domed and located in the heart of a major metro area with a lot of other things going on around it and with little sports competition college or pro for UTSA

Miami won their national championships playing in a stadium they don't own and no one cared they did not own it because "they don't own that" is a stupid argument that is meaningless to anyone not associated with a team that has accomplished little more than "we own our stadium"

USF has never owned their stadium and still does not and their all time record is 107-66 and they went from independent to CUSA to the Big East without owning a stadium....since joining the BE they are 4-2 on bowl games out of 7 years

they went 5-7 last year and their lowest attendance in a place "they don't own" was 39.5K in a metro area with 2 million less residents than DFW

I have never heard anyone anywhere get into huge "they don;t own their practice facilities" discussions either.....sure fans have discussions about "we need an indoor facility" or the like, but if the city, county, or state came along and built any program in the country a new indoor practice facility only a few dolts would say "we don't own it" especially if the team pretty much had carte blanche on the use of it which UTSA does with the Alamodome and that USF actually does not with the stadium where they average 40K fans per game in a 5-7 season

recruiting might be impacted by practice facilities, but only the quality of them not the question of ownership and I don't recall any conference realignment discussion I saw that ever dealt with who owns a practice facility or really even who had what practice facilities.....does the BE really care where Boise practices as long as they keep winning....the BE sure did not care that SDSU plays in a stadium they don't own and their attendance was just over 28K and their highest just over 57K

you should really get over the idea that a closet full of yearly participation trophies means anything to anyone because it really doesn't and neither does "ownership" of facilities

I get your argument to an extent, however, when Conference USA didn't choose UNT in 2003 they cited lack of facilities as one of their reasons for not selecting UNT. That is why I mentioned this as a potential issue. Hence, Apogee Stadium was built to improve the universities resume.

Sure, UNT could have kept going down to Texas stadium or eventually Cowboys Stadium (which makes any sports facility in San Antonio or possibly anywhere look pathetic) but why bother if you can build your own stadium? I never said a negative word about where they play. It has to do with most attractive candidates.

With this in mind, your argument isn't a very strong in my opinion. You complaining about stadiums around the country wasn't the point either. No one said a team can't succeed without owning there own stadium. I wanted to hear thoughts on what they have to offer, other than tv. Seeing they have a limited football resume. Honest question in my opinion.

They are in a great market. If you'd read my post you would have read something about the San Antonio television market. UTSA doesn't have any historical evidence to make them the strongest candidate for the aforementioned conference because they have a brand new program. No matter what they do, best of luck to them. I will always cheer for Texas teams.

If facilities have mattered for some in the past then logic dictates that it will probably come up again. UTSA fans where discussing facility issues on another website and that is exactly why I mentioned it. I'm am truly sorry you didn't read what the Roadrunners fans wrote about their own program but you probably don't get to witness every internet interaction on college football. It wasn't "huge" either, your words.

Why do practice facilities matter? Considering the student athletes spend an overwhelming time period at these facilities and any conference should take this into consideration for the students attending a given University. Yes, it matters. It mattered to me when I played at UNT and that was why I was so happy the university invested into improving the facilities. Yes, it helps recruiting. Yes, it helps recruiting in other sports as well. I will give you a hint, other sports can share these facilities. Sorry I even have to mention a practice facility has these things called "training rooms" so if you need rehab or or get injured you can easily access assistance. Again, yes, I'd say they are important and not just if you are winning. Quality does matter in this regard. The student athletes should be taken care of, especially for the money they bring in. If I am a commissioner looking at candidates and what each brings to the table, you are damn right I am going to look at these universities from top to bottom before passing judgment on who to take and why. That's just me though. I guess maybe I am just weird and apparently collect trophies in a closet or whatever weak attempt at condescension that isn't worth repeating.

Edited March 21, 2012 by UNTexas

[buff64]

They're in San Antonio. Of course, so is Trinity, and with a much longer history of playing football.

Plus Incarnate Word which has applied to move to DI. By the way doesn't UTSA play at the Alamo Dome?

[wardly]

i still think its about t.v. markets,not past records or stadium owership,etc.,with DFW,MIAMI,San Jose,San Antonio and F.A.U.[south Florida]being the most attractive.unless a program has the potential to bring increased revenue to the table they will probably be left out of the new Alliance conference. La. Tech is a good example of a good program with no market. when the smoke clears the combined Sun Belt/WAC should be o.k., with NMSU,La.Tech,Texas State,Ark.State, ULL,ULM,W.K.,MTSU,Troy, and USA. Idaho is s.o.l. Just an old man's opinion.