[Mars]

Reb Baron, on 10 February 2010 - 01:53 AM, said:

As for what does UNLV bring to the PAC-10...bowl game (yes I know they already are in the LV Bowl)

I think the MWC would keep the LV bowl even if UNLV left the conference. But that's just a guess.

[calpoke25]

displacedute, on 09 February 2010 - 11:47 PM, said:

To summarize: UNLV would love the PAC 10, the PAC 10 doesn't need UNLV.

The same can be said for Utah. I'm not sold the Pac-10 needs Utah to accomplish anything they can't already.

[calpoke25]

I look at the Pac-10 and see it as a somewhat similar situation to the current MWC. We are striving towards a higher goal as a conference, but we would all much rather do it by ourselves than by expanding.

I think the Pac-10 is striving for that goal of a higher TV deal, and I believe they have the clout to attain that without expanding.

I envision their discussion on expansion to go something like this,

Pac-10 President X, "So what about expanding and adding Utah and team TBD?" Other Pac-10 presidents, "Ya they're a nice school, have good athletic programs and all, but do we REALLY need them?"

Now this is the point in the conversation where Utah would need someone in the Pac-10 to stand up and make a strong argument for expansion that would convince the other schools that they need to expand.

Who is going to do this? I just don't see anyone in that conference really that interested.

[Reb Baron]

Mars, on 10 February 2010 - 01:18 AM, said:

I think the MWC would keep the LV bowl even if UNLV left the conference. But that's just a guess.

Yes it would, just like the Big West kept it when UNLV joined the WAC and then the WAC kept it when UNLV joined the MWC. Yes how could Las Vegas ever part with the Las Vegas BYU Bowl.

.

[Reb Baron]

calpoke25, on 10 February 2010 - 01:59 AM, said:

I look at the Pac-10 and see it as a somewhat similar situation to the current MWC. We are striving towards a higher goal as a conference, but we would all much rather do it by ourselves than by expanding.

I think the Pac-10 is striving for that goal of a higher TV deal, and I believe they have the clout to attain that without expanding.

I envision their discussion on expansion to go something like this,

Pac-10 President X, "So what about expanding and adding Utah and team TBD?" Other Pac-10 presidents, "Ya they're a nice school, have good athletic programs and all, but do we REALLY need them?"

Now this is the point in the conversation where Utah would need someone in the Pac-10 to stand up and make a strong argument for expansion that would convince the other schools that they need to expand.

Who is going to do this? I just don't see anyone in that conference really that interested.

I think you're missing the point. The PAC-10 doesn't want to expand, they want a conference tournament, The NCAA says you must have 12 schools to have a CT, so now the PAC-10 needs to expand.

.

[suralexander]

One more thought for those people that say PAC10 already has San Diego and Las Vegas; you need to remember that those PAC10 alums that live in those cities and donate big money will have influence on who would get a PAC10 invite. If you're a big booster club for PAC10 schools in San Diego or Las Vegas who do you think they will push for? You cannot underestimate the ability to showcase the premier university within a major city within your region.

Of course I am just throwing a wrench in the whole Utah is a no brainer argument. Its just too easy to point out the obvious with Utah's academics, new tv market, and committed athletic program. On the same token I think it is a mistake to devalue what UNLV and SDSU bring to the table.

[Reb Baron]

son of a gun, on 10 February 2010 - 01:05 AM, said:

Actually, it seems as though the Pac-10's LV Bowl tie-in is up either this year or next. And we have a one year deal with Navy I believe, than someone else.

LAS VEGAS - The top selection from the Mountain West Conference will continue to face off against the Pacific-10 Conference in the MAACO Bowl Las Vegas through at least 2013 as renewal deals with both leagues were announced Aug. 24.

The bowl game, which will stage its 18th edition this December during the last year of the current contracts, continues to have the No. 1 choice from the MWC and will have the No. 5 selection from the Pac-10. The bowl previously was in a rotation with the Emerald Bowl for its Pac-10 representative but will now have its choice of schools at that fifth spot starting in 2010.

.

[Reb Baron]

.
The PAC-10 might not be looking for a football school, they seem to be doing all right in that area. Have you seen where they are in Basketball lately?
They might just take UNLV to boost the conference in Basketball and overlook for now it's football program reasoning that that would only get better with PAC-10 membership.
Like I said I wouldn't rule out UNLV from the running lightly, you might just be surprised.

.

[Hoser]

bluebrotha, on 09 February 2010 - 10:25 PM, said:

I'm not quite sure where you pulled that thought out of. No, Boise would be a full pledged member with all athletics. The MWC can have more basketball programs than football programs. Take a look at the current number of BE schools in basketball compared to football.

I got that from your idea that as you said "You can keep UNLV, SDSU and NM in the conference as basketball only programs, similar to what the BE has now". What makes you think that UNLV, SDSU and NM would ever be a BB only school? Maybe you can clear that up.

[Hoser]

SleepingGiantsFan, on 09 February 2010 - 07:46 PM, said:

Well, it isn't him who twice spelled "pretty" with three t's. Besides, I can see it now. The Aztecs and Lobos will just play each other a dozen times every year in football.

that was intentional as I was trying to emphasize the pretty part and did not do a very good job of that I can see now. I really do know how to spell pretty. I was replying to the Boise poster that said UNM, UNLV and SDSU "could be BB only schools". That actually came from a fan who supports a school that only has one sport to hang their hat on, funny stuff.

[RogueStout]

Hoser, on 10 February 2010 - 08:07 AM, said:

that was intentional as I was trying to emphasize the pretty part and did not do a very good job of that I can see now. I really do know how to spell pretty. I was replying to the Boise poster that said UNM, UNLV and SDSU "could be BB only schools". That actually came from a fan who supports a school that only has one sport to hang their hat on, funny stuff.

He's a BYU alum iirc.
He's not a Boise poster.

[Big Frog II]

Reb Baron, on 10 February 2010 - 04:19 AM, said:

I think you're missing the point. The PAC-10 doesn't want to expand, they want a conference tournament, The NCAA says you must have 12 schools to have a CT, so now the PAC-10 needs to expand.

.

I think a conference championship gaem for the Pac-10/12 would be about as successful as it has for the ACC. The ACC game is played before 10's of thousands of empty seats beacuse they are so spread out. The Pac-10/12 would have similar problems if they used a neutral site.

Regardless, I don't think they will expand because of the difficulty of everyone in their conference agreeing on two teams and the economics of expansion.

[Pure Purple]

Expansion or Retention....

Any team that doesn't desire membership in the MWC should be allowed to

leave and seek those so-called greener pastures. There's not a single team

in this conference that is so invaluable that it can't be readily replaced.

[Chad Sexington]

calpoke25, on 10 February 2010 - 02:59 AM, said:

Who is going to do this? I just don't see anyone in that conference really that interested.

If I had to guess I would say either Washington or Cal, possibly one or both of the Arizona schools.

However, I am not certain that your scenario is proceeduraly accurate.

[Chad Sexington]

Pure Purple, on 10 February 2010 - 09:21 AM, said:

Expansion or Retention....

Any team that doesn't desire membership in the MWC should be allowed to

leave and seek those so-called greener pastures. There's not a single team

in this conference that is so invaluable that it can't be readily replaced.

I agree.
Even with all of this hullabaloo, my first best outcome that I would like to see happen is that the MWC remains intact, attracts three other members, and achieves AQ status independent of these other expansion scenarios.

However, it all comes down to money. If the MWC can accomplish this and can approximate, say within 20% (off the cuff, I have no data), of the other conferences monetary status, then I would oppose leaving this conference.

If not, well...

[calpoke25]

Chad Sexington, on 10 February 2010 - 08:44 AM, said:

However, it all comes down to money. If the MWC can accomplish this and can approximate, say within 20% (off the cuff, I have no data), of the other conferences monetary status, then I would oppose leaving this conference.

So say Utah goes to the Pac-10, is earning 2-3x what they make currently from the MWC, but becomes another Washington St. in that conference competition-wise. Its possible.

[Chad Sexington]

calpoke25, on 10 February 2010 - 10:43 AM, said:

So say Utah goes to the Pac-10, is earning 2-3x what they make currently from the MWC, but becomes another Washington St. in that conference competition-wise. Its possible.

Yes. I think it is possible. I don't think it is probable, but it is possible.
And the money would likely be 2X what it is in the MWC.
(But I don't really know what it would be, what is the average athletic budget for PAC schools? Is it around $40-45mm?)

[socalspud]

Reb Baron, on 10 February 2010 - 06:41 AM, said:

.
The PAC-10 might not be looking for a football school, they seem to be doing all right in that area. Have you seen where they are in Basketball lately?
They might just take UNLV to boost the conference in Basketball and overlook for now it's football program reasoning that that would only get better with PAC-10 membership.
Like I said I wouldn't rule out UNLV from the running lightly, you might just be surprised.

.

They are looking for TV sets and money. A Pac-10 network with CU and UU STILL gets onto LV cablesystems ... or San Diego ... WITHOUT CU it DOES NOT get on in Denver ....

[aztecbob]

I live in San Diego and most of my friends and I watch Pac-10 sports, because its always on. I'm a fan of football. I'd much rather watch a FoxSportsWest game between Cal and UCLA than the ESPN game with Boise St and some no-name school. Does that mean that I am a PAC-10 fan? Not unless we're talking Men's Soccer (In which SDSU is a part of the PAC-10)

[calpoke25]

Reb Baron, on 10 February 2010 - 02:19 AM, said:

I think you're missing the point. The PAC-10 doesn't want to expand, they want a conference tournament, The NCAA says you must have 12 schools to have a CT, so now the PAC-10 needs to expand.

.

I think you mean a conference championship game in football? I'm not aware of any number restrictions for a BBall tournament.

But those conference title games aren't always the slam-dunk people make them out to be, exhibit A the ACC title game.

I'm assuming a Pac-12 would have their title game in Los Angeles as there is no real other viable alternative. They aren't rotating them to Tucson or Pullman or Corvalis Oregon...? So how many schools not named USC or UCLA are going to be traveling fans there when if they win the game they will be traveling right back to the Rose bowl in a month?

[SleepingGiantsFan]

calpoke25, on 10 February 2010 - 12:37 PM, said:

I think you mean a conference championship game in football? I'm not aware of any number restrictions for a BBall tournament.

But those conference title games aren't always the slam-dunk people make them out to be, exhibit A the ACC title game.

I'm assuming a Pac-12 would have their title game in Los Angeles as there is no real other viable alternative. They aren't rotating them to Tucson or Pullman or Corvalis Oregon...? So how many schools not named USC or UCLA are going to be traveling fans there when if they win the game they will be traveling right back to the Rose bowl in a month?

The Pac 10 champion virtually always plays in a BCS bowl game and with the exception of the BCS championship game, the teams which participate in BCS bowl games are not predetermined. Therefore, the only time your argument would hold water is when the Rose Bowl would be the site of the BCS championship game and that will only happen every seven years or so. Even in that instance, the importance of the Pac 10 championship would be such as to make it almost a guaranteed sellout.

More broadly, those of us who are fans of Wyoming, SDSU, CSU, UNM, UNLV, AFA and probably also TCU need to get real. Fact is it's looking more and more likely that at least Utah if not also BYU will no longer in the MWC in several years. So rather than being in denial about that, we need to be proactive in deciding how we are going to react when the time comes. Personally, I think we should push for adding Boise State immediately in the hopes that so doing will elevate the conference so much into the forefront that it gains AQ status before Utah leaves. Simultaneously, we need to keep the pressure on the administration of our various schools to not let any football program turn into the POS that SDSU was for most of the 00's and that UNM was last season.

[calpoke25]

SleepingGiantsFan, on 10 February 2010 - 12:01 PM, said:

The Pac 10 champion virtually always plays in a BCS bowl game and with the exception of the BCS championship game, the teams which participate in BCS bowl games are not predetermined. Therefore, the only time your argument would hold water is when the Rose Bowl would be the site of the BCS championship game and that will only happen every seven years or so. Even in that instance, the importance of the Pac 10 championship would be such as to make it almost a guaranteed sellout.

Huh? the champion virtually always plays in a BCS bowl game? How about every single time. The Rose Bowl gets the national title game every 4 years, not every 7. And unless the champion of the Pac-10 is playing in the BCS title game they go to the Rose Bowl.... Thats set in stone.

[NowherePoke]

SleepingGiantsFan, on 10 February 2010 - 02:01 PM, said:

More broadly, those of us who are fans of Wyoming, SDSU, CSU, UNM, UNLV, AFA and probably also TCU need to get real. Fact is it's looking more and more likely that at least Utah if not also BYU will no longer in the MWC in several years. So rather than being in denial about that, we need to be proactive in deciding how we are going to react when the time comes. Personally, I think we should push for adding Boise State immediately in the hopes that so doing will elevate the conference so much into the forefront that it gains AQ status before Utah leaves. Simultaneously, we need to keep the pressure on the administration of our various schools to not let any football program turn into the POS that SDSU was for most of the 00's and that UNM was last season.

It's too late for this SGF. Until the PAC-10 decides for sure that it will or won't expand, then Boise would be foolish to join the MWC. Conveniently, the PAC-10 won't fully decide that until the summer of 2011, by which time it will be too late to utilize BSU's strength in the BCS AQ calculation for the MWC if they are added.

The whole AQ thing is dead and gone.

However, I am still not convinced that the PAC-10 will ultimately expand. They will evaluate it, but it will all come down to whether or not they can derive enough media revenue to lure Colorado. I don't think any of us truly know the answer. I think they might decline to expand if their only option is to settle for Plan B (UNLV or someone similar). The MWC might come out of it ok. What we won't get is AQ status. Sometimes conspiracy theories aren't theories....