Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Nevada Convert

Getting BYU In !!!!!! Poll

BYU to the MWC  

103 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you like to BYU back in the MWC as a regular member?

  2. 2. For those that voted yes, how far would you go to get them back? NO votes click last choice

    • No special deals, nothing but a full member like everyone else.
    • I would be willing to do a deal less than what Boise got.
    • I'd be willing to match Boise's deal.
    • I'd be willing to offer BYU more than Boise (whoever checks this box is a fuking idiot)
    • No votes, click on this.


Recommended Posts

need more info ... if added as a 13th member, are we going to be an unbalanced conference or are they bringing someone with them?  If so, whom?

 

If not bringing a 14th member, are we saying "Aloha" to Hawaii as a football only member and forcing them into football independence?

 

Is there a way to bring in BYU (and whomever) by undoing the Boise St. deal and having an equitable media sharing deal for all members?

(and '86 this TV bonus structure?)

 

these answers would help me to vote

LBH45AqczF9hO5XyQxqE.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner

I voted yes, but only in the sense that BYU already has "part member" status in the MWC. Why rejoin when we can already have our cake and eat it too?

We play Boise and USU every year (we fill USU and Boise stadiums), will continue to schedule Hawaii and UNLV, and Fresno and San Jose are dying to schedule us.

Wyoming and SDSU are the main "peers" of BYU in the MWC, and Wyoming is demanding that BYU kneel and acknowledge Wyoming as the new King of the MWC. It is a standoff between BYU and WYO right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be willing to match Boise's deal, IF they brought the additional revenue to support it.  The whole basis of the Boise deal was that they brought the extra revenue to make it doable, that would have to happen.  Right now anything that brings the conference as a whole more revenue and exposure is a good thing.  Eventually though, we have to quit playing P5 politics and balance the conference from a revenue standpoint.  Otherwise, we're just building two tiers in the conferences, and in the long run that will split the conference.  There is no team in this discussion that doesn't do better in a committed conference than in a split conference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I voted yes, but only in the sense that BYU already has "part member" status in the MWC. We play Boise and USU ever year, will continue to schedule Hawaii and UNLV, and Fresno and San Jose are dying to schedule us.

Wyoming and SDSU are the main "peers" of BYU in the MWC, and Wyoming is demanding that BYU kneel and acknowledge Wyoming as the new King of the MWC. It is a standoff between BYU and WYO right now.

True. And not sure BYU would sacrifice your currently better tv deal for one equal to what Boise has now.

But I'm also not so sure if losing $2 to $4 million a year isn't chump change to your U. If by all our hopes MW becomes closer and closer to what the ACC has in football strength top to bottom, it might be tempting.

As it would for BYU to go to a surging AAC....which I believe there's a back burner wish for both conferences to lure BYU in.

~ FF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I voted yes, but only in the sense that BYU already has "part member" status in the MWC. Why rejoin when we can already have our cake and eat it too?

We play Boise and USU every year (we fill USU and Boise stadiums), will continue to schedule Hawaii and UNLV, and Fresno and San Jose are dying to schedule us.

Wyoming and SDSU are the main "peers" of BYU in the MWC, and Wyoming is demanding that BYU kneel and acknowledge Wyoming as the new King of the MWC. It is a standoff between BYU and WYO right now.

You also voted for BYU getting a better deal than Boise did.  You are currently a convenience from a scheduling aspect.  An upper G5 team that is just down the block.  Enjoy your standoff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking unbalanced conf. And add a 14th when the time and school are right.

But if Hawaii can't get solid for another 5 years, then I say we drop them and they can go indie.

ah ... then I feel we can wait them out (5 years you say?)  --- let them have their independence

 

I vote NO to admittance, and no special deal as an affiliate member either

LBH45AqczF9hO5XyQxqE.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be willing to match Boise's deal, IF they brought the additional revenue to support it. The whole basis of the Boise deal was that they brought the extra revenue to make it doable, that would have to happen. Right now anything that brings the conference as a whole more revenue and exposure is a good thing. Eventually though, we have to quit playing P5 politics and balance the conference from a revenue standpoint. Otherwise, we're just building two tiers in the conferences, and in the long run that will split the conference. There is no team in this discussion that doesn't do better in a committed conference than in a split conference.

I feel the same way. If espn is willing to kick in some extra $ like they did for bsu and byu was willing to share it like boise did I see it as a good thing. I would want to add someone and not drop Hawaii. Texas state would be my choice.

Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner

I'd be willing to match Boise's deal, IF they brought the additional revenue to support it.  The whole basis of the Boise deal was that they brought the extra revenue to make it doable, that would have to happen.  Right now anything that brings the conference as a whole more revenue and exposure is a good thing.  Eventually though, we have to quit playing P5 politics and balance the conference from a revenue standpoint.  Otherwise, we're just building two tiers in the conferences, and in the long run that will split the conference.  There is no team in this discussion that doesn't do better in a committed conference than in a split conference.

Please...

Not even counting TV deals, BYU would bring 5,000 to 8,000 fans to a game versus CSU. Especially since our BYU fans in Colorado are starved to see BYU since BYU left the MWC.

Plus we'd bring TV interest for football AND basketball. We are a regular NCAA tournament team.

So, does BYU bring "extra revenue". That goes without saying.

But...BYU is in love with the WCC. If anything, it's BYU's dream not to rejoin the MWC, but to steal a few MWC schools over to the WCC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Poll, please check the appropriate boxes. If there are any idiots out there wanting to vote, have a friend help you.

Fix your poll- it won't count "no" votes because of the second question. That way, even the "idiots" can vote...

Image result for h.l. mencken quotes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner

You also voted for BYU getting a better deal than Boise did.  You are currently a convenience from a scheduling aspect.  An upper G5 team that is just down the block.  Enjoy your standoff.

And MWC schools are a "convenience" for us, filling our October and November schedule. We'd really struggle as an Indy without the MWC games.

But you guys equally need BYU. BYU gives you a great home-and-home game, when too many of the P5 wants 7 to 8 home games per year (wants MWC 2 for 1).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But...BYU is in love with the WCC. If anything, it's BYU's dream not to rejoin the MWC, but to steal a few MWC schools over to the WCC.

 

 

I'm fine with that as long as it doesn't involve Seattle or Denver University.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like BYU in the WCC. It's a good fit

Not really. Byu is not like any other school in the wcc as far as student population and facilities. They also are the only one who plays football.

Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...