Jump to content
mugtang

Should the MWC try to pick up the best of the AAC leftovers?

AAC  

97 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the MWC poach the best of the AAC leftovers?

  2. 2. If you voted yes who should we poach?



Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, HawaiiMongoose said:

Been thinking about this a lot in the past 24 hours.

Conference realignment is a brutal and zero-sum game.  The latest round is a powerful reminder that you win by taking opponents off the board.  The MWC and AAC have been at a stalemate for several years, with the AAC gradually creeping ahead, but now the AAC is being decapitated by the Big 12.  The smart response by the MWC would be to move aggressively to dismantle what's left of the AAC and secure its place as the top non-autonomy FBS conference.

I don't come to this conclusion easily.  I've never been a fan of oversized or "best of the rest" conferences.  As recently as two days ago I was arguing against MWC expansion by more than two schools.  But I've realized this is a rare opportunity to expand without diluting the product or the TV revenue and I believe our conference needs to move aggressively to secure its future as a player in the national collegiate athletics landscape.

Hence my suggestion is to go to 16 football members divided into four pods and 18 for Olympic sports divided into two divisions.

The additions would be SMU, Memphis, Tulane, Tulsa and Wichita State from the AAC, Gonzaga from the WCC, and Hawaii as an all-sports instead of football-only member (you knew there had to be something in it for the home team, right?).

The football pods are below.  Each team would play its pod-mates plus two members of each of the other pods each season for a total nine-game schedule.  The two highest-ranked pod winners would play for the conference championship.

East: SMU, Memphis, Tulsa, Tulane

Central:  Wyoming, Colorado State, Air Force, New Mexico

Mountain:  Boise State, Utah State, Nevada, UNLV

West:  San Jose State, Fresno State, San Diego State, Hawaii

The Olympic sports division split is below.  Members would play mostly in-division until the conference tournament to minimize travel cost and time.  In basketball each member would play an 18-20 game regular season consisting of 16 home-and-home games against division-mates and 2-4 crossovers.

East: SMU, Memphis, Tulsa, Tulane, Wichita State, Wyoming, Colorado State, Air Force, New Mexico

West: Boise State, Utah State, Nevada, UNLV, Gonzaga, San Jose State, Fresno State, San Diego State, Hawaii

This expansion would effectively eliminate the AAC as a viable conference.  Its remaining four members -- Temple, USF, ECU, and football-only Navy -- could try to rebuild from scratch or disband and join other conferences.  If they were to rebuild the new AAC would basically be CUSA East.

The expanded MWC would be the clear cut sixth best conference nationally in football.  In basketball the conference would be at worst seventh and could contend for sixth.  Bringing together the MWC's historically prominent New Mexico, UNLV, San Diego State and Utah State hoops programs with powerhouses Memphis, Wichita State, SMU and Gonzaga would make for great matchups in front of big crowds in historic arenas.

Finally, I acknowledge that bringing UH into the conference for all sports may not be a popular idea.  However I don't think there's a better all-around alternative to numerically balance the western side of the conference with the eastern side, and I think we have a lot to offer.  Our basketball program is well-supported and even with mediocre performance in the Big West has drawn solid home crowds of 5K-plus per game.  Playing in the new MWC West would allow us to recruit much better and put us in position similar to the old WAC days when we were always a solid competitor, could make a title run every 5-8 years and sold out our 10K-seat arena for high-stakes games.  We also offer strong programs in baseball (we'd have the best home attendance and one of the top stadiums in the conference) and niche sports like women's volleyball (Sweet 16 in 2019) and swimming & diving (five consecutive MPSF championships).  And yes, we'd swallow hard and agree to pay travel subsidies to visiting conference opponents.

So that's the plan.  C'mon powers-that-be, get with it.  Gotta move FAST and AGGRESSIVELY in this game to win.

Figured you'd seek a way into here as a full member.  But before you go, how about helping your current home get a couple replacements from outside CA? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wyobraska said:

Why would the MW want Navy for football?  I'd rather not have another academy in the conference.  

$

Literally the only reason. If it puts more money in SJSU’s pockets, then it’s fine by me. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RSF said:

And the singular question remains:

 

Why would a school from either conference move?

 

We know expansion is about one thing - money.  And the money isnt going to be significant enough either way.  Would an AAC pay the 10 million exit fee to earn pretty much the same amount in the MWC?  Is a MWC team going do the same?

 

So unless FOX/CBS or Disney is willing to seriously sweeten the TV pot, there's no monetary incentive for anybody to move.

That’s why you start with Gonzaga. 
 

Also, is Wichita’s buyout 10 million? I wouldn’t be surprised if it is, but I also wouldn’t be surprised if they had a lower number.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, SalinasSpartan said:

$

Literally the only reason. If it puts more money in SJSU’s pockets, then it’s fine by me. 

I don't see them bringing that much more money to the conference.  If I recall correctly the Army-Navy game was not part of the AAC contract.  Navy isn't a big enough bump to deal with the headache of adding them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

If the MWC invites enough schools the conference could well vote to disband.  

I think the question still remains, why would they do that? If they can stay in an eastern based conference for the same amount of money, why bother? An AAC back filled with SBC and CUSA programs is still going to be on par with the MWC in football, wether we want to admit it or not. 
 

But of course, Wichita State doesn’t give a shit about wether or not football remains on par with the MWC, and for them travel wouldn’t be all that different. Basketball in the AAC will unquestionably take a step back, and Wichita is not going to be happy about that. Don’t know if their buyout is the full 10 million, but if we could get Gonzaga on board I have to imagine there would be interest on their part. Wether the numbers would end up making sense for them, I don’t know.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Wyobraska said:

I don't see them bringing that much more money to the conference.  If I recall correctly the Army-Navy game was not part of the AAC contract.  Navy isn't a big enough bump to deal with the headache of adding them. 

I guess I just don’t see them as a big headache being a football only member, considering the MWC already has plenty of experience working with a service academy.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't need to be in a hurry to add anyone. 

No one in the AAC moves the needle. 

Unless ESPN/FOX/CBSS gets involved and creates some sort of merger that is beneficial to all parties, we don't need to add more dead weight.

If you look at what teams they have and what we have, none of the potential games look like "must see events" and there are no natural, geographic rivals. 

I could see some sort of a scheduling agreement, but that's pretty much it.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, SalinasSpartan said:

That’s why you start with Gonzaga. 
 

Also, is Wichita’s buyout 10 million? I wouldn’t be surprised if it is, but I also wouldn’t be surprised if they had a lower number.

Gonzaga alums already shot down the move because they want to stick with their traditional rivals.  BYU leaving doesn't really change that nor does their leaving really leave the WCC much weaker.

A move to the MW doesn't help the Zags either.  It's not like the MW is a big step up in regards to conference play. They've also got a pretty sweet deal where they are. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, thespywhozaggedme said:

A monopoly on the top G5 teams for playoff $$$. 

Some of those schools could just be flashes in the pan and then you are stuck with them and they are far away with zero reason for being in the conference

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m thinking super-big conference. 18 football full members, plus 2 basketball members. 
9 team divisions for football, but you play all division mates, 8 games, plus 4 non-conference games. Division winners play for conference championship. It’s effectively two conferences, but ties up the best teams. 
10 team division for basketball, play division mates twice, winners are top 1 and 2 in conference tournament all tourney games are played against the other division. 
problem for me is how to split the teams. One of UNM, WYO, CSU, AFA would need to play with the western teams.  How can you have like half the country and not have more than 8 teams. 
I’m not so focused on media money, more on access to playoff for a champion. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Aslowhiteguy said:

Gonzaga alums already shot down the move because they want to stick with their traditional rivals.  BYU leaving doesn't really change that nor does their leaving really leave the WCC much weaker.

A move to the MW doesn't help the Zags either.  It's not like the MW is a big step up in regards to conference play. They've also got a pretty sweet deal where they are. 

 

 

Minus BYU, that's one less top 60-ish program for the WCC.  Drops it from a 2-3 bid league back to a 1-2 bid.  That's a significant loss in depth.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, lobo-tomy said:

I’m thinking super-big conference. 18 football full members, plus 2 basketball members. 
9 team divisions for football, but you play all division mates, 8 games, plus 4 non-conference games. Division winners play for conference championship. It’s effectively two conferences, but ties up the best teams. 
10 team division for basketball, play division mates twice, winners are top 1 and 2 in conference tournament all tourney games are played against the other division. 
problem for me is how to split the teams. One of UNM, WYO, CSU, AFA would need to play with the western teams.  How can you have like half the country and not have more than 8 teams. 
I’m not so focused on media money, more on access to playoff for a champion. 

I just don't get this urge by everyone for a huge sprawling mess of a conference.  Y'all remember the WAC 16 right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Wyobraska said:

I just don't get this urge by everyone for a huge sprawling mess of a conference.  Y'all remember the WAC 16 right?

I understand the sentiment.  I remember the WAC 16 very well and didn’t like it.  But it’s a different era and if we could do it without splitting up historical rivals (which was the WAC 16’s downfall) then I think it’s in our strategic and financial interest to seriously consider it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not gonna read everything above as I stopped after the first page. I did so and voted no in the poll for one simple reason.

For literally years since SDSU backed out of going to what would become the AAC, I haven't posted to that conference's board but have lurked occasionally just to see what was going on. What I read in the first page of this thread sounded eerily like what I've found so often on the AAC board. Which is to say threads debating which schools the conference should add. You know, because its wonderful commissioner could grab any other G5 schools his heart desired.

Get a clue, guys. Craig Thompson is just as inept as Mike Aresco.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, 818SUDSFan said:

Not gonna read everything above as I stopped after the first page. I did so and voted no in the poll for one simple reason.

For literally years since SDSU backed out of going to what would become the AAC, I haven't posted to that conference's board but have lurked occasionally just to see what was going on. What I read in the first page of this thread sounded eerily like what I've found so often on the AAC board. Which is to say threads debating which schools the conference should add. You know, because its wonderful commissioner could grab any other G5 schools his heart desired.

Get a clue, guys. Craig Thompson is just as inept as Mike Aresco.

Not only that but a school like Memphis would be clamoring to join a conference that is far away for probably close to what they could make in a more regional conference? 

 

They would be abandoning their traditional recruiting grounds, spending a ton on travel, and playing schools that their fan base mostly wouldn't care about.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would feel most comfortable standing pat for now and I feel it is the best decision at this point. But, if we want to knock down the AAC I think we need to take from their existing members and also look at and take from their prospective new members pool.   The best and only school that makes sense to me to take from their existing ranks is SMU, for proximity and tv market reasons.  Looking at their pool of potential replacement western (Texas) schools, with the idea of remaining as regional as possible, I would add 1 of either North Texas or UTSA, I would maybe lean more towards UNT because I think they have better facilities, history, good basketball, and overall support, but, UTSA and the San Antonio TV market are worth considering because it would be one of the biggest in the conference.  Having two Texas schools in the central time zone should allow for better recruiting in the state as well as improved  tv options for the conference from being in a new and different time zone.

Mountain

SMU

North Texas/UTSA

Air Force

New Mexico

Colorado State

Wyoming

Utah State

 

West

Boise State

Nevada

UNLV

Fresno State

San Jose State

San Diego State

Hawaii

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Eff the Big expansion.

Add the Zags and Shockers for B-ball.

Go to CBS and Fox and ask what added value there is with SMU and Memphis. Zags and Shockers fir B-ball. If there is added value, invite them.

Offer SMU and Memphis Olys travel subs for games West of Logan.

 

Phuck everyone else.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Spaztecs said:

Eff the Big expansion.

Add the Zags and Shockers for B-ball.

Go to CBS and Fox and ask what added value there is with SMU and Memphis. Zags and Shockers fir B-ball. If there is added value, invite them.

 

Phuck everyone else.

 

 

Memphis is too much of an outlier and they most likely will be poached in next rounds of expansion to big 12 anyways.  Therefore, I don't think it would be wise to commit to them, I would like to add Gonzaga and Wichita State, although I think the Zags have shown they are not willing to play in a league unless it is full of high school gyms.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Aslowhiteguy said:

Gonzaga alums already shot down the move because they want to stick with their traditional rivals.  BYU leaving doesn't really change that nor does their leaving really leave the WCC much weaker.

A move to the MW doesn't help the Zags either.  It's not like the MW is a big step up in regards to conference play. They've also got a pretty sweet deal where they are. 

 

I just don’t buy that Gonzaga cares about rivalries, at all. I think they stayed because they got a good deal and the WCC with BYU was comparable enough to the MWC at the time, but I think the MWC will clearly be the better conference now. And it’s not JUST about losing BYU, it’s about who replaces them, or even if they are replaced. I’m sure the other 8 will want to add Seattle, Denver, or GCU, and I’m sure Gonzaga will hate all those choices and would rather add nobody. There is going to be some tension there.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SalinasSpartan said:

I just don’t buy that Gonzaga cares about rivalries, at all. I think they stayed because they got a good deal and the WCC with BYU was comparable enough to the MWC at the time, but I think the MWC will clearly be the better conference now. And it’s not JUST about losing BYU, it’s about who replaces them, or even if they are replaced. I’m sure the other 8 will want to add Seattle, Denver, or GCU, and I’m sure Gonzaga will hate all those choices and would rather add nobody. There is going to be some tension there.

 

I hope you are right, I had not thought about that!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...