Interesting - he said Montana had a MWC offer in 2006 and turned it down because Montana State did not want to go.
Printable View
Interesting - he said Montana had a MWC offer in 2006 and turned it down because Montana State did not want to go.
TV eyeballs don't move the needle a ton at the G5 level but for recruiting base/area purposes, they definitely do. For example, why do you think conferences continue to push so hard to find options in Texas?Quote:
Originally Posted by TAILG8R
I agree with this. It's not an absolute as the factors for each conference/school will be different. Location is often fairly high. The biggest obstacle NDSU has is location. But they have many other positive factors that can overcome that. The right combination of factors just haven't happened yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by abc123
Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk
Well known at the time, and probably the right decision. WAC back then was an even bigger basketcase than today's CUSA. They lost 8 members in 1999, then another 5 by 2005. Of the 3 suckers they did get to join in 2005, Idaho dropped back to FCS and NMSU went indy. Utah State is good program now, but at the time they had decades of apathy. WAC dropped football entirely a few years later.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackdiamond2
As Joe Chapman bemused, athletics is the front porch of the school.
In a world of a declining pool of potential students (2026 enrollment cliff) getting in front of that pool is critical.
Where are the potential students?
https://www.cupahr.org/wp-content/up...on-College.jpg
This is why CA and TX schools are of interest to conferences, and why it's unlikely to get the MTs out of the BSC as long as Sac, Davis, and Poly are there.
That was an offer from the WACQuote:
Originally Posted by blackdiamond2
The WAC in 2006 had Boise State, Fresno State, Nevada, Hawaii, SJSU, Utah State, New Mexico State, La Tech, and Idaho. That was not a basket case at all. When the MW was formed in 99, the WAC still had TCU, Rice, UTEP, SMU and Tulsa. Those schools went to CUSA in 2004. It remained a stable and productive conference until 2010/11 when BSU, NV, FSU and Hawaii were added to the MW. In 2012 SJSU and Utah State moved to the MW. It was then that the WAC stopped sponsoring FBS football.Quote:
Originally Posted by taper
Had Montana and MSU joined in 2006 it was not a certainty that they would eventually have moved to the MW but nobody knew what the future MW lineup might be at that point.
There are only two western conferences in FBS so there is not a lot of slots available. Some schools get left behind.
WAC lost 26 members and dropped football in the space of 15 years. On what planet is that a stable conference?Quote:
Originally Posted by MWC
There were changes in the lineup over the years but the WAC was a football conference for 50 years. None of the schools came directly from 1aa or FCS until the last year of its football sponsorship.. So far, 5 former wacsters have advance to the P5 level. Arizona, ASU, TCU, Utah BYU. San Diego State should be joining them soon. Every school in the MW was in the WAC at one time. The last version of the football WAC had 2 interesting addition. UTSA and and Texas State fresh out of FCS. UTSA has worked its way up to the AAC and Texas State is on a very short list of candidates for for the MW. It took these schools 10 years to get in this position. However, it proves the WAC was a great stepping stone for the schools that played there. If you were to receive an invitation to the MW you would be getting a really big head start in the FBS world that others haven't really received.
The WAC morphed into the MW..It all the same players..All of them. By your definition, because schools have left a conference is unstable and dying..You would have to include the MW into your definition. Why on earth would you have any interest in joining under that scenario? NDSU would not stop other schools from coming and going. You have exactly zero respect for the MW and your are certainly entitled to your opinion but schools come and go in lots of conferences.Quote:
Originally Posted by taper
For the longest time the west of the Mississippi River college football hierarchy was
PAC
MWC
WAC
FCS (BSC)
When the WAC gave up football it left a void still not yet filled, namely "entry level" FBS.
The WAC was really only entrance level for one year. Boise, Nevada and Idaho all had to start in the Big West before getting a WAC invitation. It was only at the end of things that UTSA and Texas State got an entry level spot for football..Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Sicatoka
I am not sure there enough western schools left to start another FBS conference.
Actually for the longest time it was
PAC
WAC
Big sky
The MW is a relative new comer to the proceedings and was formed by original WAC founding members, later additions SDSU, AFA and UNLV.
The names change to protect the innocent and the guilty but the basis of everything in the MW is the WAC. The core remains.
Really good listen. 2 things:
1. So why is it this guys job to break that news?
2. Are we just gonna gloss over the comment about how NDSU and SDSU may not fit the footprint? Same shit different day.
And then he gets into Washington state, Oregon state and Texas schools depending on how the chips fall.
Good luck.
I think I touched a nerve. Why so emotional?Quote:
Originally Posted by MWC
Yes, by my definition a conference that loses 26 teams and their premier sport is unstable and dying. Who wouldn't say that?
MWC doesn't fit that AT ALL. They've lost 3 members ever, all over a decade ago. That's pretty solid. Since when have I shown zero respect for the MWC? I have my doubts they'd invite us unless they're desperate, but isn't a sign of respect that I think they can afford to be picky?
Geography sucks.Quote:
Originally Posted by daddy daycare
All along I've speculated UW/UO/Cali-Stan to B1G, 4C to BXII, and WasSU/OrSU to MWC ... and O'Day rolls out the same speculation.
Not emotional at all..The WAC still exists under a different name. There are very few schools out west and every member of the MW was also a WAC member at one time. The one time the WAC tried to expand outside of their region they added TCU, SMU, Rice and Tulsa. It didn't work at all. It messed with rivalries, generated weird schedules and start times. TV providers were not interested.Quote:
Originally Posted by taper
The airport meeting was designed solely to get out from under the horrible WAC 16 mess. The original founders of the WAC formed the MW then proceeded to add WAC members to fill out the fairly tight regional model that exists to this day. They would have retained the WAC name if they could. The MW is the WAC again. They just don't call themselves the WAC..But it is all schools that have been aligned with one another for decades. Of the 26 members that have left. 4 were the the Texas schools and Tulsa, 3 were former WAC members who didn't make the cut: Idaho, NMSU and UTEP, possibly 6 moved to P5, and UTSA? TX state. So 15 left the conference. The rest are still in the MW..The MW is the WAC.
You see this as a really unstable thing. I just disagree. It is a workable "regional" conference of similar schools with long term rivalries. The conference does quite well in many sports. The travel is not easy but not horrible either. It works pretty well.
The one time it went out of the region it caused a mess but they figured out how to fix it and eventually became one semi-happy family again. However, the MW has lost soon to be 4 members to P5. The AAC just lost 3 too..Those schools got themselves to that position by growing their programs. Hat tip to them.
The MW is no less stable because of that.
Yep. By far the biggest hurdle for NDSU and it’s not in their control.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Sicatoka
Geography is not the hurdle..
Its a plane flight like we do & they do for all away games
If the MW wants you your location won't matter..Quote:
Originally Posted by El_Chapo
However, the last time the WAC/MW went out of their comfort zone and added schools from out of the neighborhood with only very limited history with the newcomers, they blew that model up quickly and reformed as the traditional WAC under a different name.
The MW did add TCU but other than that all expansions were long time western schools.
I don't know that the MW will add anyone but if they do you could be in the mix. The conference is not desperate at all so any add would need to check a lot of positive boxes or why else add at all.
Its seen as a hurdle because more distance often increases travel costs for all sports.Quote:
Originally Posted by El_Chapo
Less significant for P5, and perhaps MWC can make it work. Having a better media deal helps.
Most G5 schools do try to reduce travel if they can. Charter flights are billed based on Hobbs engine time.
NCAA regionalizes a lot of their playoffs (not just FCS) for the same reasons.
Rule 2: 11 + 1 = 13
To understand that in a conference mindset ...
https://frankthetank.org/2009/12/27/...ade-of-orange/
Fun fact: I live in Rutgers country (Penn State and R have about the same visibility) and have yet to see a Rutgers game of any kind on TV. I wonder what kind of ratings they get?Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Sicatoka
It doesn't matter..Rutgers still gets a split of that sweet BiG tv deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by tony
Bulllllshit.Quote:
Originally Posted by El_Chapo
Believe they were supposedly invited because having them in the conference massively increased cable/media distribution for the B1G. Not convinced they have much of a fanbase compared to the typical B1G team, but apparently their location/media market immediately benefitted the conference on payouts.Quote:
Originally Posted by MWC
A lot of this happens in FBS, the conferences are looking at what a new market/location will do for their media deals, recruiting, and potential student enrollments. Part of the reason California and Texas markets seem so desirable. Where it gets ludicrous is when the conferences go after the #5 or #6 school in a given market, just so they can claim that market.
Rutgers and Maryland weren't desirable because fans of those schools brought a lot of eyeballs. It was because it made it an easier sell to cable providers in NYC, Baltimore, and DC to pay for the BiG network. Existing B1G schools have good alumni bases in those cities, but maybe not big enough for the providers to carry the network. Now they do and that's big money for the B1G.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHorns
In G5 or FCS, they aren't getting into a larger market for eyeballs with the #5 or #6 team. It's for recruiting and alumni development. UMKC doesn't get a lot of attention in KC, but schools in the Summit have better luck recruiting in the area because mom and dad know they'll be able to see their kids play close to home at least once a year. A friend of mine has a son that was recruited heavily by NDSU and JMU as a B1G transfer. But he chose EKU partially because his dad could much more easily travel to his games every weekend. Richmond is only 3 hours from Indy, and most of the OVC schools are within 4-5 hours. Another key reason though was the head coach at EKU had recruited him when he was an assistant at Tennessee. His daughter is on the Rutgers track team, so she went a little further away, but she was one of the top javelin recruits in the country and they are apparently one of the top teams in the country.
Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk
A lot of the talking heads claimed adding Kennesaw was all about getting into the Atlanta media market.Quote:
Originally Posted by IndyBison
There are 4 other schools that own that market though: UGA, Georgia Tech, Georgia Southern, Georgia State
Kennesaw is on the outskirts, and has a tiny fanbase. Distant #5 in Atlanta, yet somehow it was all about location/market.
https://twitter.com/ChrisDemirdjian/...582317056?s=20
They aren't getting huge media attention being in Atlanta, but they will get more attention than they do without being there. Ball State, Indiana State, Evansville, IUPUI, PFW, Valpo, and Butler (other than basketball) are those similar schools in Indiana that don't get a lot of attention, but they do get mentioned.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHorns
The bigger thing, though, is they now have games near Atlanta and can host alumni events there and have a better story for recruits in Atlanta/Georgia. The smaller the footprint the less impactful that will be.
Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk
I don't know how much attention Kennesaw will get in the Atlanta media. When we lived in Portland, PSU would be lucky to get one highlight on the Saturday night sports and they would usually just show the score along with the D-III team in the area. There wasn't much time left after the Oregon and Oregon State coverage plus other Pac-10/12 action.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IndyBison
Like Indy said, "It's for recruiting and alumni development."Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammerhead
Otherwise, your point stands: You'll see UGA, GT; You won't be seeing KSU highlights at 6, 9, and 10 pm.
You doing OK after the sky opened up over the weekend? North of you or ...Quote:
Originally Posted by tony
I have friends in North Bergen.
Oddly enough NDSU and SDSU presidents refute the former Montana AD claims. But I’m sure since mcfeely wrote it it’s wrong.
McFeely thinks the conversations are happening.Quote:
Originally Posted by daddy daycare
https://twitter.com/mcfeely_inforum/...HQPKWSmnUDKjxg
Quote:
My take. NDSU has somehow let MWC know it is interested in discussing membership if a spot opens. NDSU would be first interested in football-only membership so it could go alone, but if MWC insisted on all-sports NDSU and SDSU would have to go together as travel partners.
It's pretty easy to answer whether "you" have been having conversation with another conference if of course you haven't and all conversations are run through a third party.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHorns
when did presidents & ad's turn into political hacks. this is pathetic.
THERE'S NOTHING WRONG YOU DIP$HITS WITH SAYING
"HECK YEA We'd Love to be in the Mountain West, or BIG 12 or BIG 10 but no invite has come as of yet from either"
instead we get this pussyfooting wordsalad bullshit.
I think he was just reporting what was said on Dom Izzo's Hot Mic show which would make the former AD at Montana wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by daddy daycare
If the members of the MW want you they will invite you. Keeping any and all negotiations on the down low is normal business practice. I am sure NDSU knows what the MW is looking for and the MW already knows what NDSU wants.Quote:
Originally Posted by El_Chapo
The MW already knows what they are going to do under any scenario.
We should get some clarity today about San Diego State. I have no idea what is going on in that negotiation but were I guess the outcome, SDSU will probably stick around for 2 more seasons to avoid the 35 million dollar exit fee. I suspect SDSU will have to provide some concession in return for that.
The trickle down from realignment that occurs may open doors for expansion. Schools are moving around all over.
Yeah. And there has to be some level of truth to it - that NDSU has expressed interest at a minimum. Whether that fits the definition of “active” can be sliced about 100 different ways.Quote:
Originally Posted by TAILG8R
Or the guy is just a pathological liar
Yep, and that’s the standard way this is done. Lots of reasons to not make it public until it’s a done deal. Third party messengers also let them side step FOIA type requests.Quote:
Originally Posted by TAILG8R
San Diego St to the PAC is the exception, not the rule, and it created a huge mess for them with all the letters and parsing of whether they are actually leaving or staying. Normally nothing is said until you have a deal to move. Just creates headaches if it doesn’t work out with conference mates and the fanbase.