Jump to content

Archived

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

MWC Tex

Dodd: MW will not expand for football

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, TheBigAwesome said:

 

Is this correct?

I posted this on another thread:

How do the financials work out to $5M/year/school at $45M/year? Was the quoted deal in that article supplemented by additional funds for third-tier rights or something? 

Or does that $5M/year figure include CFP payouts and/or APR payouts, etc.?

My guess is it has something to do with CFP revenue/tourney credits to get to that average.

Also Hawaii only takes a portion of what would be their share of the revenue with the way negotiations went with regards to the school keeping the tier 3 rights with Spectrum. Where whatever is the difference between the tier 3 rights revenue (around $2-3m yearly) and what the average school makes in the conference is what Hawaii is provided and the remaining is split with the other members.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RSF said:

AAC had a 2 year waiver, to buy them time when they lost UConn.  The NCAA bylaw is conferences must either have 1 division and full round robin (top 2 teams play), or divisions with round robin and the division winners play.

https://web3.ncaa.org/lsdbi/reports/getReport/90008

17.11.6.2 Annual Exemptions. [FBS/FCS]

17.11.6.2.1 Bowl Subdivision. [FBS] In bowl subdivision football, the maximum number of football contests shall exclude the following: (Revised: 1/10/90, 11/1/07 effective 8/1/08, 10/28/10, 10/27/11 effective 4/1/12, Adopted: 8/2/12 effective 8/1/14, 1/15/16 effective 8/1/16) (a) Spring Game. One contest at the conclusion of the spring practice period [see Bylaw 17.11.5-(a)], provided the contest is against a team composed of bona fide alumni or students or both;

(b) Conference Championship Game. One conference championship game: (1) Between division champions of a conference that is divided into two divisions (as equally balanced in number as possible) and conducts round-robin, regular-season competition in each division; or (2) Between the top two teams in the conference standings following full round-robin regular-season competition among all members of the conference.

It appears to only be doable with a Ten School or less Conference. 

I know SDSU doesn't want to give up their two P5 games and Home Scrimmage against a weak sister to play all in Conference.

"We don't have evidence but, we have lot's of theories."

Americans Mayor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, BacksThePack said:

Everybody wants to play Boise every year to be fair.

Not UNLV or New Mexico.

"We don't have evidence but, we have lot's of theories."

Americans Mayor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

SDSU has stated publicly the school wants to play Boise every year in football.  

Cool.  Like I said, go for it.  The rest of us don't care.  Just don't use intra-conference rearranging as an excuse to bring in a crap team.  Put UNLV in the Mountain.  Whatever, just no stupid additions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Headbutt said:

Cool.  Like I said, go for it.  The rest of us don't care.  Just don't use intra-conference rearranging as an excuse to bring in a crap team.  Put UNLV in the Mountain.  Whatever, just no stupid additions.

Would never happen because then you would probably have to run into the scenario of UNLV ensuring they get to play Nevada every year for their rivalry game. I agree no stupid additions but at that point it's personal viewpoints it seems more than anything else as to what would be a stupid addition and what wouldn't be

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Headbutt said:

Cool.  Like I said, go for it.  The rest of us don't care.  Just don't use intra-conference rearranging as an excuse to bring in a crap team.  Put UNLV in the Mountain.  Whatever, just no stupid additions.

How do you feel about adding the Montana Schools? The PAC did themselves a huge service by offering the AZ schools before Arizona such a big state in the West, we could be in the same position with regards to Montana given how much they are growing. 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, happycamper said:

How do you feel about adding the Montana Schools? The PAC did themselves a huge service by offering the AZ schools before Arizona such a big state in the West, we could be in the same position with regards to Montana given how much they are growing. 

It's been mentioned but the state currently would probably have issues supporting 2 FBS programs which is compounded by Montana's enrollment issues on top of the fact that neither school would leave without the other. Give it a few years with the rapidly increasing population and time to fix the issues at Montana and it could be a possibility. As much as I would like to see Montana in the Mountain West it's not in the cards presently

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, happycamper said:

How do you feel about adding the Montana Schools? The PAC did themselves a huge service by offering the AZ schools before Arizona such a big state in the West, we could be in the same position with regards to Montana given how much they are growing. 

This is completely counter to all my reasoning for not bringing in the lower rung of Texas athletics, but I actually like the idea of the MT schools.  Everybody gets worked up over UTSA's potential, but I think University of Montana has a higher ceiling, eventually.  I believe I've heard that they have no interest in moving to FBS though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Headbutt said:

This is completely counter to all my reasoning for not bringing in the lower rung of Texas athletics, but I actually like the idea of the MT schools.  Everybody gets worked up over UTSA's potential, but I think University of Montana has a higher ceiling, eventually.  I believe I've heard that they have no interest in moving to FBS though.

Too many issues financially and with enrollment currently but the financial issues could potentially be taken care of if we were offered enough but it seems CBS / Fox isn't interested in offering more money for expanding. Also we're not moving up without Montana State so would have to be a both or nothing deal. Funny enough Montana state is actually beating us in terms of enrollment, facility upgrades (granted we didn't need them as much as they did) and I hate to say it they've had our number the last couple of seasons

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Headbutt said:

This is completely counter to all my reasoning for not bringing in the lower rung of Texas athletics, but I actually like the idea of the MT schools.  Everybody gets worked up over UTSA's potential, but I think University of Montana has a higher ceiling, eventually.  I believe I've heard that they have no interest in moving to FBS though.

Yeah that is how I felt about it too. The PAC got ahead of the demographic/growth curve their last 4 additions, it would be a smart move the try and copy that. 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, utgrizfan said:

It's been mentioned but the state currently would probably have issues supporting 2 FBS programs which is compounded by Montana's enrollment issues on top of the fact that neither school would leave without the other. Give it a few years with the rapidly increasing population and time to fix the issues at Montana and it could be a possibility. As much as I would like to see Montana in the Mountain West it's not in the cards presently

I would like to see the Montana schools in the MW. Lock up a fast growing state and solidify our market. Plus, it really really really fits our brand. 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, utgrizfan said:

Would never happen because then you would probably have to run into the scenario of UNLV ensuring they get to play Nevada every year for their rivalry game. I agree no stupid additions but at that point it's personal viewpoints it seems more than anything else as to what would be a stupid addition and what wouldn't be

Allow each team to preserve a cross Division Rivalry. The B1G and SEC do it.

Boise - Nevada play in the "We came up together " game 

Hawa'ii - Wyoming for the Pinelo

SUDS - UNM for the Rocky Hoke Cup.

Sparty - UTags for the Last Teams In Trophy

Fresno - AFA Just cause

UNLV - CSU 

Also, despite the stated disadvantages, I like having Nine Conference games. You get to play cross Division rivals more frequently.

 

 

"We don't have evidence but, we have lot's of theories."

Americans Mayor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Headbutt said:

Cool.  Like I said, go for it.  The rest of us don't care.  Just don't use intra-conference rearranging as an excuse to bring in a crap team.  Put UNLV in the Mountain.  Whatever, just no stupid additions.

UNLV would protest that.  As would every single West division team.  Not going to happen.  Better to get rid of divisions all together and make the only programs in this conference worth anything (Boise, SDSU, Fresno and Nevada) happy, right?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BacksThePack said:

Everybody wants to play Boise every year to be fair.

Do they though?

Honestly I don't really care the years Fresno skips Boise. Playing SDSU, SJSU, and Hawaii every year is more important to me than playing Boise every year. Boise falls into the 2nd tier with Nevada where it would be nice to play them every year but it is not a big deal to play just 2 out of 4 years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

UNLV would protest that.  As would every single West division team.  Not going to happen.  Better to get rid of divisions all together and make the only programs in this conference worth anything (Boise, SDSU, Fresno and Nevada) happy, right?

 

No.  You're delusional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...