Football Home Game
Sat, August 31, 2024
Sat, August 31, 2024
Basketball Home Game
Fri, November 1, 2024
Fri, November 1, 2024
Thompson's Response
-
AggieFBObsession
- Posts: 3199
- Joined: January 25th, 2011, 12:15 pm
- Has thanked: 6797 times
- Been thanked: 1237 times
Re: Thompson's Response
If you're considering TV viewers only, then, yes, go ahead and create WAC 2.0. But I haven't seen any evidence to believe that's the only factor in these decisions. Otherwise, why didn't the PAC 12 expand into Texas already?BleedAggieBlue0 wrote: ↑September 18th, 2021, 12:27 pmHave we not yet learned that money so the only thing that any of these schools care about?AggieFBObsession wrote:Angry no. I grew up on a farm. The F word is not a swear word in the milk barn....
The Texas schools have nothing in common with any of the western MWC schools. It's a nonstarter.
If the schools add money and don’t come with any huge negatives, the MWC will always choose the better financial option.
I’m just wondering if you have any reasoning as to why NMSU and UTEP would bring more value than Rice and SMU. If this conversation was just about personal preference of opponents than I didn’t realize that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
nvspuds
- Posts: 1944
- Joined: November 17th, 2010, 6:32 pm
- Has thanked: 50 times
- Been thanked: 1400 times
Re: Thompson's Response
Utah State has exactly nothing in common with SDSU or SJSU or FSU but a marriage of convenience calls for strange bedfellows from time to time.
-
BleedAggieBlue0
- Pick'em Champ - '14 Bowl
- Posts: 2835
- Joined: January 8th, 2012, 10:18 pm
- Has thanked: 242 times
- Been thanked: 78 times
Re: Thompson's Response
Oh I don’t think SMU would come here either. I was just saying if given the choice between SMU and NMSU or UTEP, I don’t see how anyone could turn down SMU. They would be an amazing add, but no chance imo. I also like Rice than either of the other schools, but that’s fine.ineptimusprime wrote:I wouldn’t take Rice under any circumstance. I’d definitely take SMU over NMSU or UTEP. If we are going Texas wing, my schools would be SMU and North Texas.BleedAggieBlue0 wrote: ↑September 18th, 2021, 12:04 pmCurious why? I would take SMU and Rice over NMSU and UTEP even if it came with a stubbed toe.AggieFBObsession wrote:I'd rather take NMSU and UTEP than SMU and Rice. JMHO. Montana would be better than any of them though...ineptimusprime wrote: ↑September 18th, 2021, 11:51 am
I do really want to make sure we do not end up being the western version of the MAC in basketball, which is why adding solid basketball programs like NMSU and UTEP might be the most desireable if we do need to backfill.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I doubt we’re going to have much luck in the immediate future recruiting AAC schools to the MW. Why would they pay the AAC buyout for what is currently a smaller TV deal in the MW and a conference that geographically makes less sense for them? I suspect the AAC schools are going to have to sit in their filth for a few years and have that TV deal go bye-bye before they’d entertain coming over to the MW. No sense jumping over now for what is less money.
The MW’s offer is basically “we know you’re making $60k right now, but come over here for $30k (and payoff that $150,000 non-compete), and in a few years we SHOULD all be making $100k.” Good freaking luck. I don’t think the MW is in a good position to poach any schools from the AAC.
I was simply coming from a place of SMU + Rice > UTEP + NMSU.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Blitz79
- Posts: 2329
- Joined: January 16th, 2011, 8:11 am
- Has thanked: 7 times
- Been thanked: 427 times
Re: Thompson's Response
Off course it matters. People are much more likely to watch local schools play. The more eyes on the screen the more ads you sell. TV markets are all about the number of eyes on the screen and the ads you can sell.
-
AggieFBObsession
- Posts: 3199
- Joined: January 25th, 2011, 12:15 pm
- Has thanked: 6797 times
- Been thanked: 1237 times
Re: Thompson's Response
Usually, I agree with your points. But you're wrong on this point. Utah State has a large alumni base in California and Las Vegas. That speaks volumes about the fact that Utah State needs California far more than Texas.
-
BleedAggieBlue0
- Pick'em Champ - '14 Bowl
- Posts: 2835
- Joined: January 8th, 2012, 10:18 pm
- Has thanked: 242 times
- Been thanked: 78 times
Re: Thompson's Response
Yeah I would never suggest adding UTSA OR Texas State.ineptimusprime wrote:It all depends on your “conference building” philosophy. I personally think an expansion into Texas could yield short-term economic benefits, but certainly doesn’t feel like a viable long-term marriage. It reeks of asking for further instability down the line.BleedAggieBlue0 wrote: ↑September 18th, 2021, 12:21 pmDid not mean to cause a stir…AggieFBObsession wrote:I think both options are a nonstarter unless Montana (should be our first choice) says no. I think it's a bad idea to look to Texas. How does Texas benefit SDSU or Fresno State or Hawaii or SJSU or Nevada? If you can't understand that Texas doesn't benefit those schools, then I don't know what else I can tell you. The fact that you ask that question tells me that you're somehow sold on Texas or the AAC as if Texas has some kind of miracle solution to the MWC's problem. The reality is that the only way that a G5 conference survives is with geographically and like-minded relationships. You don't create a WAC 2.0 unless you're trying to be proactive to practically known universities that will exit.BleedAggieBlue0 wrote: ↑September 18th, 2021, 12:04 pmCurious why? I would take SMU and Rice over NMSU and UTEP even if it came with a stubbed toe.AggieFBObsession wrote:I'd rather take NMSU and UTEP than SMU and Rice. JMHO. Montana would be better than any of them though...ineptimusprime wrote: ↑September 18th, 2021, 11:51 am
I do really want to make sure we do not end up being the western version of the MAC in basketball, which is why adding solid basketball programs like NMSU and UTEP might be the most desireable if we do need to backfill.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Which MWC schools are certain to leave right now? Nobody. Exactly. Then the MWC should do nothing or add Montana as a preventative measure (at most). Otherwise, sit tight. Don't f0ck up what aint broken!
Texas has loads of benefits that I absolutely do not need to type out. Two of those programs have lots of money, and huge TV markets. Then there’s recruiting. NMSU very literally does not offer any of that.
Your response seems angry and I’m not sure why as I was in no way looking for an argument. Literally just was curious what your reasoning was…
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It just doesn’t make a lot of sense to me for a Methodist teaching school in Dallas to be in the same athletic conference with a public research school in Wyoming, Utah, or Nevada. The geography doesn’t make sense and the mission of the schools doesn’t really blend well. The argument for NMSU and UTEP is that they are schools like Utah St with geography that makes sense. The best argument is that long-term stability is much more likely in a conference like the 8 team one I describe above.
But if the MW is sticking together and adding SMU, Wichita, Gonzaga, and SMC, I’ll be the first one on that train.
Adding teams like UTSA or Texas St. feels a lot to me like adding a Texas version of San Jose St. Those are adds based solely on market potential, and would piss me off substantially.
I just know SMU has about as big of a brand as any other school that we could ever mention adding. They’d immediately be at the top of the conference.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
BleedAggieBlue0
- Pick'em Champ - '14 Bowl
- Posts: 2835
- Joined: January 8th, 2012, 10:18 pm
- Has thanked: 242 times
- Been thanked: 78 times
Re: Thompson's Response
It’s how our athletic department is funded… so yeah it matters a little.Aggie19 wrote:Real question, I can pretty much see any game I want anywhere in the country, so do TV markets really matter anymore? Like, at all. I keep hearing this brought up in all this and I think it's a mute point.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- These users thanked the author BleedAggieBlue0 for the post:
- Aggie19
-
slcagg
- Posts: 14347
- Joined: December 15th, 2010, 6:29 pm
- Has thanked: 4489 times
- Been thanked: 4118 times
Re: Thompson's Response
Yup big fan of adding smu. Do I think Thompson will try or have any luck? Probably not.BleedAggieBlue0 wrote: ↑September 18th, 2021, 12:34 pmYeah I would never suggest adding UTSA OR Texas State.ineptimusprime wrote:It all depends on your “conference building” philosophy. I personally think an expansion into Texas could yield short-term economic benefits, but certainly doesn’t feel like a viable long-term marriage. It reeks of asking for further instability down the line.BleedAggieBlue0 wrote: ↑September 18th, 2021, 12:21 pmDid not mean to cause a stir…AggieFBObsession wrote:I think both options are a nonstarter unless Montana (should be our first choice) says no. I think it's a bad idea to look to Texas. How does Texas benefit SDSU or Fresno State or Hawaii or SJSU or Nevada? If you can't understand that Texas doesn't benefit those schools, then I don't know what else I can tell you. The fact that you ask that question tells me that you're somehow sold on Texas or the AAC as if Texas has some kind of miracle solution to the MWC's problem. The reality is that the only way that a G5 conference survives is with geographically and like-minded relationships. You don't create a WAC 2.0 unless you're trying to be proactive to practically known universities that will exit.BleedAggieBlue0 wrote: ↑September 18th, 2021, 12:04 pmCurious why? I would take SMU and Rice over NMSU and UTEP even if it came with a stubbed toe.AggieFBObsession wrote:I'd rather take NMSU and UTEP than SMU and Rice. JMHO. Montana would be better than any of them though...ineptimusprime wrote: ↑September 18th, 2021, 11:51 am
I do really want to make sure we do not end up being the western version of the MAC in basketball, which is why adding solid basketball programs like NMSU and UTEP might be the most desireable if we do need to backfill.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Which MWC schools are certain to leave right now? Nobody. Exactly. Then the MWC should do nothing or add Montana as a preventative measure (at most). Otherwise, sit tight. Don't f0ck up what aint broken!
Texas has loads of benefits that I absolutely do not need to type out. Two of those programs have lots of money, and huge TV markets. Then there’s recruiting. NMSU very literally does not offer any of that.
Your response seems angry and I’m not sure why as I was in no way looking for an argument. Literally just was curious what your reasoning was…
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It just doesn’t make a lot of sense to me for a Methodist teaching school in Dallas to be in the same athletic conference with a public research school in Wyoming, Utah, or Nevada. The geography doesn’t make sense and the mission of the schools doesn’t really blend well. The argument for NMSU and UTEP is that they are schools like Utah St with geography that makes sense. The best argument is that long-term stability is much more likely in a conference like the 8 team one I describe above.
But if the MW is sticking together and adding SMU, Wichita, Gonzaga, and SMC, I’ll be the first one on that train.
Adding teams like UTSA or Texas St. feels a lot to me like adding a Texas version of San Jose St. Those are adds based solely on market potential, and would piss me off substantially.
I just know SMU has about as big of a brand as any other school that we could ever mention adding. They’d immediately be at the top of the conference.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
ineptimusprime
- Posts: 7895
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 12:07 pm
- Has thanked: 411 times
- Been thanked: 4961 times
Re: Thompson's Response
They do matter cause $$$. There are a lot of assumptions built in, but it is generally true that a schools like Boise or Utah (which command their modest TV markets) have more eyeballs on them than USU.
Where it’s complete and utter (I can't express myself without swearing) is when it is used to justify adding a San Jose St, Texas St., or UTSA based on “TV market.” Those schools are fools good because no one in their respective TV markets cares about those schools.
We have a rabid fanbase, but it is and always will be small.
- These users thanked the author ineptimusprime for the post (total 2):
- slcagg • Aggie19
-
BleedAggieBlue0
- Pick'em Champ - '14 Bowl
- Posts: 2835
- Joined: January 8th, 2012, 10:18 pm
- Has thanked: 242 times
- Been thanked: 78 times
Thompson's Response
Because their is no schools available in Texas that realistically add anything of monetary value to the PAC-12. The PAC-12 is not the MWC. There’s dozens and dozens of millions of dollars and fans separating the two conferences.AggieFBObsession wrote:If you're considering TV viewers only, then, yes, go ahead and create WAC 2.0. But I haven't seen any evidence to believe that's the only factor in these decisions. Otherwise, why didn't the PAC 12 expand into Texas already?BleedAggieBlue0 wrote: ↑September 18th, 2021, 12:27 pmHave we not yet learned that money so the only thing that any of these schools care about?AggieFBObsession wrote:Angry no. I grew up on a farm. The F word is not a swear word in the milk barn....
The Texas schools have nothing in common with any of the western MWC schools. It's a nonstarter.
If the schools add money and don’t come with any huge negatives, the MWC will always choose the better financial option.
I’m just wondering if you have any reasoning as to why NMSU and UTEP would bring more value than Rice and SMU. If this conversation was just about personal preference of opponents than I didn’t realize that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
SMU takes a big ol’ crap on all other options when it comes to $$$.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Aggie19
- Posts: 1615
- Joined: November 2nd, 2018, 7:52 am
- Has thanked: 1729 times
- Been thanked: 1084 times
Re: Thompson's Response
Yeah, but you're not selling to a local or regional market anymore. Back in the old days, eyes on TVs in a given market mattered because that is the only market that would see the game and you wouldn't waste your dollars in a small TV market. The market now, is the world, not salt lake valley or utah. The ads aren't locally based. I get fan count watching, but that isn't local anymore. Other than huge national match ups, there are so many games, I really don't think it matters.
Go Aggies!
-
AggieFBObsession
- Posts: 3199
- Joined: January 25th, 2011, 12:15 pm
- Has thanked: 6797 times
- Been thanked: 1237 times
Re: Thompson's Response
If any of the Western schools play SMU at home, doesn't it draw so many more viewers to the game than any other MWC school playing there? Keep in mind that it's a Pacific time zone game. I think the answer is no, because Pacific time zone fans don't care about Texas teams, nearly as much as schools more regional. Fresno State/SDSU is a much more interesting matchup for California viewers than Fresno State/SMU. Fresno State/Nevada, I contend, is a much more interesting matchup for California viewers than Fresno State/SMU. Utah State may not bring much more to the table in that scenario than SMU, but we have a far longer historical relationship with Fresno State than almost any other team besides SDSU and SJSU.
And I don't have the numbers, but I don't think it's a push to say that Utah State has more alumni in California than SMU. Again, Utah State has more in common with the western MWC schools than SMU.
Last edited by AggieFBObsession on September 18th, 2021, 12:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
BleedAggieBlue0
- Pick'em Champ - '14 Bowl
- Posts: 2835
- Joined: January 8th, 2012, 10:18 pm
- Has thanked: 242 times
- Been thanked: 78 times
Re: Thompson's Response
Agreed. No chance.slcagg wrote:Yup big fan of adding smu. Do I think Thompson will try or have any luck? Probably not.BleedAggieBlue0 wrote: ↑September 18th, 2021, 12:34 pmYeah I would never suggest adding UTSA OR Texas State.ineptimusprime wrote:It all depends on your “conference building” philosophy. I personally think an expansion into Texas could yield short-term economic benefits, but certainly doesn’t feel like a viable long-term marriage. It reeks of asking for further instability down the line.BleedAggieBlue0 wrote: ↑September 18th, 2021, 12:21 pmDid not mean to cause a stir…AggieFBObsession wrote:I think both options are a nonstarter unless Montana (should be our first choice) says no. I think it's a bad idea to look to Texas. How does Texas benefit SDSU or Fresno State or Hawaii or SJSU or Nevada? If you can't understand that Texas doesn't benefit those schools, then I don't know what else I can tell you. The fact that you ask that question tells me that you're somehow sold on Texas or the AAC as if Texas has some kind of miracle solution to the MWC's problem. The reality is that the only way that a G5 conference survives is with geographically and like-minded relationships. You don't create a WAC 2.0 unless you're trying to be proactive to practically known universities that will exit.BleedAggieBlue0 wrote: ↑September 18th, 2021, 12:04 pmCurious why? I would take SMU and Rice over NMSU and UTEP even if it came with a stubbed toe.AggieFBObsession wrote:I'd rather take NMSU and UTEP than SMU and Rice. JMHO. Montana would be better than any of them though...ineptimusprime wrote: ↑September 18th, 2021, 11:51 am
I do really want to make sure we do not end up being the western version of the MAC in basketball, which is why adding solid basketball programs like NMSU and UTEP might be the most desireable if we do need to backfill.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Which MWC schools are certain to leave right now? Nobody. Exactly. Then the MWC should do nothing or add Montana as a preventative measure (at most). Otherwise, sit tight. Don't f0ck up what aint broken!
Texas has loads of benefits that I absolutely do not need to type out. Two of those programs have lots of money, and huge TV markets. Then there’s recruiting. NMSU very literally does not offer any of that.
Your response seems angry and I’m not sure why as I was in no way looking for an argument. Literally just was curious what your reasoning was…
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It just doesn’t make a lot of sense to me for a Methodist teaching school in Dallas to be in the same athletic conference with a public research school in Wyoming, Utah, or Nevada. The geography doesn’t make sense and the mission of the schools doesn’t really blend well. The argument for NMSU and UTEP is that they are schools like Utah St with geography that makes sense. The best argument is that long-term stability is much more likely in a conference like the 8 team one I describe above.
But if the MW is sticking together and adding SMU, Wichita, Gonzaga, and SMC, I’ll be the first one on that train.
Adding teams like UTSA or Texas St. feels a lot to me like adding a Texas version of San Jose St. Those are adds based solely on market potential, and would piss me off substantially.
I just know SMU has about as big of a brand as any other school that we could ever mention adding. They’d immediately be at the top of the conference.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Was just said by someone that UTEP and NMSU are the poster’s preferences over SMU and RICE, and I thought that was a pretty crazy thing to say. I was genuinely curious why that might be their preference.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
AggieFBObsession
- Posts: 3199
- Joined: January 25th, 2011, 12:15 pm
- Has thanked: 6797 times
- Been thanked: 1237 times
Re: Thompson's Response
PAC 12 didn't go to Dallas because $$$ and viewership is not the only factor. It's that simple.BleedAggieBlue0 wrote: ↑September 18th, 2021, 12:37 pmBecause their is no schools available in Texas that realistically add anything of monetary value to the PAC-12. The PAC-12 is not the MWC. There’s dozens and dozens of millions of dollars and fans separating the two conferences.AggieFBObsession wrote:If you're considering TV viewers only, then, yes, go ahead and create WAC 2.0. But I haven't seen any evidence to believe that's the only factor in these decisions. Otherwise, why didn't the PAC 12 expand into Texas already?BleedAggieBlue0 wrote: ↑September 18th, 2021, 12:27 pmHave we not yet learned that money so the only thing that any of these schools care about?AggieFBObsession wrote:Angry no. I grew up on a farm. The F word is not a swear word in the milk barn....
The Texas schools have nothing in common with any of the western MWC schools. It's a nonstarter.
If the schools add money and don’t come with any huge negatives, the MWC will always choose the better financial option.
I’m just wondering if you have any reasoning as to why NMSU and UTEP would bring more value than Rice and SMU. If this conversation was just about personal preference of opponents than I didn’t realize that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
SMU takes a big ol’ crap on all other options when it comes to $$$.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
ineptimusprime
- Posts: 7895
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 12:07 pm
- Has thanked: 411 times
- Been thanked: 4961 times
Re: Thompson's Response
I totally disagree with nvspuds on this (I actually usually disagree with spuds even though he is a damn fine fellow). Honestly, the profile of the MW is western public research institutions with decent-sized enrollments that aren’t good enough for the Pac-12. That has to be the profile, because schools are pretty spread out here in the west.AggieFBObsession wrote: ↑September 18th, 2021, 12:33 pmUsually, I agree with your points. But you're wrong on this point. Utah State has a large alumni base in California and Las Vegas. That speaks volumes about the fact that Utah State needs California far more than Texas.
USU, SJSU, SDSU, and FSU all share that in common. USU and FSU seem to both have strong Ag focus too.
Last edited by ineptimusprime on September 18th, 2021, 12:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.
- These users thanked the author ineptimusprime for the post:
- AggieFBObsession
-
BleedAggieBlue0
- Pick'em Champ - '14 Bowl
- Posts: 2835
- Joined: January 8th, 2012, 10:18 pm
- Has thanked: 242 times
- Been thanked: 78 times
Re: Thompson's Response
Are we going to argue that national fans would rather watch NMSU over SMU?Aggie19 wrote:Yeah, but you're not selling to a local or regional market anymore. Back in the old days, eyes on TVs in a given market mattered because that is the only market that would see the game and you wouldn't waste your dollars in a small TV market. The market now, is the world, not salt lake valley or utah. The ads aren't locally based. I get fan count watching, but that isn't local anymore. Other than huge national match ups, there are so many games, I really don't think it matters.
Those schools don’t even belong in the same conversation when it comes to interest, no matter what state or even country the eyeballs are in.
And that’s if we completely ignore that SMU already has a massive following of fans that certainly would not disappear into thin air if they somehow magically joined the MWC.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
ineptimusprime
- Posts: 7895
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 12:07 pm
- Has thanked: 411 times
- Been thanked: 4961 times
Re: Thompson's Response
No one disagrees with you that SMU would be a better add than NMSU.BleedAggieBlue0 wrote: ↑September 18th, 2021, 12:43 pmAre we going to argue that national fans would rather watch NMSU over SMU?Aggie19 wrote:Yeah, but you're not selling to a local or regional market anymore. Back in the old days, eyes on TVs in a given market mattered because that is the only market that would see the game and you wouldn't waste your dollars in a small TV market. The market now, is the world, not salt lake valley or utah. The ads aren't locally based. I get fan count watching, but that isn't local anymore. Other than huge national match ups, there are so many games, I really don't think it matters.
Those schools don’t even belong in the same conversation when it comes to interest, no matter what state or even country the eyeballs are in.
And that’s if we completely ignore that SMU already has a massive following of fans that certainly would not disappear into thin air if they somehow magically joined the MWC.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don’t see any way SMU comes for the foreseeable future because the AAC is still a better financial and geographic situation than the MW for them.
This requires a level of introspection, but are we more like NMSU or more like SMU? We are certainly more like SMU from the standpoint of athletic success, but the profile of our university is much more like NMSU.
Last edited by ineptimusprime on September 18th, 2021, 12:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
BleedAggieBlue0
- Pick'em Champ - '14 Bowl
- Posts: 2835
- Joined: January 8th, 2012, 10:18 pm
- Has thanked: 242 times
- Been thanked: 78 times
Thompson's Response
No, that’s entirely wrong actually. SMU nor any other option in Texas isn’t worth more dollars to the pac and the pac really doesn’t need more dollars. It’s that simple.AggieFBObsession wrote:PAC 12 didn't go to Dallas because $$$ and viewership is not the only factor. It's that simple.BleedAggieBlue0 wrote: ↑September 18th, 2021, 12:37 pmBecause their is no schools available in Texas that realistically add anything of monetary value to the PAC-12. The PAC-12 is not the MWC. There’s dozens and dozens of millions of dollars and fans separating the two conferences.AggieFBObsession wrote:If you're considering TV viewers only, then, yes, go ahead and create WAC 2.0. But I haven't seen any evidence to believe that's the only factor in these decisions. Otherwise, why didn't the PAC 12 expand into Texas already?BleedAggieBlue0 wrote: ↑September 18th, 2021, 12:27 pmHave we not yet learned that money so the only thing that any of these schools care about?AggieFBObsession wrote:Angry no. I grew up on a farm. The F word is not a swear word in the milk barn....
The Texas schools have nothing in common with any of the western MWC schools. It's a nonstarter.
If the schools add money and don’t come with any huge negatives, the MWC will always choose the better financial option.
I’m just wondering if you have any reasoning as to why NMSU and UTEP would bring more value than Rice and SMU. If this conversation was just about personal preference of opponents than I didn’t realize that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
SMU takes a big ol’ crap on all other options when it comes to $$$.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The pac is great money wise, the MWC will always be open to ways to get more $$$ as long as those schools don’t come with a huge negative.
SMU is a massive downgrade to the Pac, not even sure why you thinks that’s relevant to this conversation in the slightest.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited by BleedAggieBlue0 on September 18th, 2021, 12:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
nvspuds
- Posts: 1944
- Joined: November 17th, 2010, 6:32 pm
- Has thanked: 50 times
- Been thanked: 1400 times
Re: Thompson's Response
I am not sure SMU, Rice, Tulsa or UTEP would be interested in the MW at all..The whole airport meeting thing and all..
-
ineptimusprime
- Posts: 7895
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 12:07 pm
- Has thanked: 411 times
- Been thanked: 4961 times
Re: Thompson's Response
UTEP is in the C-USA and would jump at the opportunity to join the MW. Better $$$ and better geography because they are basically in New Mexico.
-
nvspuds
- Posts: 1944
- Joined: November 17th, 2010, 6:32 pm
- Has thanked: 50 times
- Been thanked: 1400 times
Re: Thompson's Response
Having said that , though..That version of the WAC, which also had TCU, Nevada joined in 2000 was by far my favorite version..I was bummed when that one fell apart..
-
AggieFBObsession
- Posts: 3199
- Joined: January 25th, 2011, 12:15 pm
- Has thanked: 6797 times
- Been thanked: 1237 times
Re: Thompson's Response
Do you really believe that Texas and Oklahoma were turning down PAC12 offers all this time? Or do you believe that the P12 wasn't really that interested? Pick the first, and I'll lmao at you.BleedAggieBlue0 wrote: ↑September 18th, 2021, 12:47 pmBecause their is no schools available in Texas that realistically add anything of monetary value to the PAC-12.
-
BleedAggieBlue0
- Pick'em Champ - '14 Bowl
- Posts: 2835
- Joined: January 8th, 2012, 10:18 pm
- Has thanked: 242 times
- Been thanked: 78 times
Thompson's Response
You’re awfully aggressive in all of these responses, guy.AggieFBObsession wrote:Do you really believe that Texas and Oklahoma were turning down PAC12 offers all this time? Or do you believe that the P12 wasn't really that interested? Pick the first, and I'll lmao at you.BleedAggieBlue0 wrote: ↑September 18th, 2021, 12:47 pmBecause their is no schools available in Texas that realistically add anything of monetary value to the PAC-12.
I’m literally only here because you said “I'd rather take NMSU and UTEP than SMU and Rice. JMHO. Montana would be better than any of them though...”
Also if I haven’t already said it enough, this has nothing to do with the Pac, and the Pac clearly doesn’t seem that intent on adding members.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited by BleedAggieBlue0 on September 18th, 2021, 12:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
BleedAggieBlue0
- Pick'em Champ - '14 Bowl
- Posts: 2835
- Joined: January 8th, 2012, 10:18 pm
- Has thanked: 242 times
- Been thanked: 78 times
Re: Thompson's Response
“I'd rather take NMSU and UTEP than SMU and Rice. JMHO. Montana would be better than any of them though...”ineptimusprime wrote:No one disagrees with you that SMU would be a better add than NMSU.BleedAggieBlue0 wrote: ↑September 18th, 2021, 12:43 pmAre we going to argue that national fans would rather watch NMSU over SMU?Aggie19 wrote:Yeah, but you're not selling to a local or regional market anymore. Back in the old days, eyes on TVs in a given market mattered because that is the only market that would see the game and you wouldn't waste your dollars in a small TV market. The market now, is the world, not salt lake valley or utah. The ads aren't locally based. I get fan count watching, but that isn't local anymore. Other than huge national match ups, there are so many games, I really don't think it matters.
Those schools don’t even belong in the same conversation when it comes to interest, no matter what state or even country the eyeballs are in.
And that’s if we completely ignore that SMU already has a massive following of fans that certainly would not disappear into thin air if they somehow magically joined the MWC.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don’t see any way SMU comes for the foreseeable future because the AAC is still a better financial and geographic situation than the MW for them.
This requires a level of introspection, but are we more like NMSU or more like SMU? We are certainly more like SMU from the standpoint of athletic success, but the profile of our university is much more like NMSU.
This is the post that got me to respond. Not sure how to interpret that any other way.
SMU is the best add in every way that matters, and we have less than a 0% chance of getting them to join because it makes absolutely no sense for SMU. Not because it doesn’t make sense for the MWC.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
nvspuds
- Posts: 1944
- Joined: November 17th, 2010, 6:32 pm
- Has thanked: 50 times
- Been thanked: 1400 times
Re: Thompson's Response
If the MW starts adding FCS schools like Montana I hope Nevada drops football..Personally, I think they best approach is to have a smaller conference rather than add..
-
AggieFBObsession
- Posts: 3199
- Joined: January 25th, 2011, 12:15 pm
- Has thanked: 6797 times
- Been thanked: 1237 times
Re: Thompson's Response
Yeah, apologize for hurting your feel-goods. It's a message board. Don't like my opinions, ignore my posts... I have been studying this issue for decades. I remember clearly WAC 1.0 and even the days where Utah State was an independent hanging on by the skin of its teeth. Let's just hope that you're wrong, because adding Texas schools is a recipe for a conference that will inevitably crumble.BleedAggieBlue0 wrote: ↑September 18th, 2021, 12:54 pmYou’re awfully aggressive in all of these responses, guy.
I’m literally only here because you said “I'd rather take NMSU and UTEP than SMU and Rice. JMHO. Montana would be better than any of them though...”
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Go Aggies!
Last edited by AggieFBObsession on September 18th, 2021, 1:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
slcagg
- Posts: 14347
- Joined: December 15th, 2010, 6:29 pm
- Has thanked: 4489 times
- Been thanked: 4118 times
Re: Thompson's Response
I think their are reasons for smu to consider it..:such as the mw is going to be the better conference if everything holds. However I agree there are probably more reasons to stay with the American.BleedAggieBlue0 wrote: ↑September 18th, 2021, 12:56 pm“I'd rather take NMSU and UTEP than SMU and Rice. JMHO. Montana would be better than any of them though...”ineptimusprime wrote:No one disagrees with you that SMU would be a better add than NMSU.BleedAggieBlue0 wrote: ↑September 18th, 2021, 12:43 pmAre we going to argue that national fans would rather watch NMSU over SMU?Aggie19 wrote:Yeah, but you're not selling to a local or regional market anymore. Back in the old days, eyes on TVs in a given market mattered because that is the only market that would see the game and you wouldn't waste your dollars in a small TV market. The market now, is the world, not salt lake valley or utah. The ads aren't locally based. I get fan count watching, but that isn't local anymore. Other than huge national match ups, there are so many games, I really don't think it matters.
Those schools don’t even belong in the same conversation when it comes to interest, no matter what state or even country the eyeballs are in.
And that’s if we completely ignore that SMU already has a massive following of fans that certainly would not disappear into thin air if they somehow magically joined the MWC.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don’t see any way SMU comes for the foreseeable future because the AAC is still a better financial and geographic situation than the MW for them.
This requires a level of introspection, but are we more like NMSU or more like SMU? We are certainly more like SMU from the standpoint of athletic success, but the profile of our university is much more like NMSU.
This is the post that got me to respond. Not sure how to interpret that any other way.
SMU is the best add in every way that matters, and we have less than a 0% chance of getting them to join because it makes absolutely no sense for SMU. Not because it doesn’t make sense for the MWC.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
BleedAggieBlue0
- Pick'em Champ - '14 Bowl
- Posts: 2835
- Joined: January 8th, 2012, 10:18 pm
- Has thanked: 242 times
- Been thanked: 78 times
Re: Thompson's Response
USU fans are always weird with these conference realignment conversations.nvspuds wrote:If the MW starts adding FCS schools like Montana I hope Nevada drops football..Personally, I think they best approach is to have a smaller conference rather than add..
Just look at how many here seem to believe USU is a better option for other conferences than CSU is.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
slcagg
- Posts: 14347
- Joined: December 15th, 2010, 6:29 pm
- Has thanked: 4489 times
- Been thanked: 4118 times
Re: Thompson's Response
Hey spuds your boys just evened th score! Hope the best kstate today. Tragedy that game is only on espn+
- These users thanked the author slcagg for the post:
- AggieFBObsession
-
BleedAggieBlue0
- Pick'em Champ - '14 Bowl
- Posts: 2835
- Joined: January 8th, 2012, 10:18 pm
- Has thanked: 242 times
- Been thanked: 78 times
Re: Thompson's Response
Poster asks reasonable question about an opinion that makes no sense (and asks the question nicely).AggieFBObsession wrote:Yeah, apologize for hurting your feel-goods. It's a message board. Don't like my opinions, ignore my posts... I have been studying this issue for decades. I remember clearly WAC 1.0 and even the days where Utah State was an independent hanging on by the skin of its teeth. Let's just hope that you're wrong, because adding Texas schools is a recipe for a conference that will inevitably crumble.BleedAggieBlue0 wrote: ↑September 18th, 2021, 12:54 pmYou’re awfully aggressive in all of these responses, guy.
I’m literally only here because you said “I'd rather take NMSU and UTEP than SMU and Rice. JMHO. Montana would be better than any of them though...”
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Go Aggies!
Other poster has a conniption and insists that the PAC12 would’ve added SMU if money were the only issue (as if SMU adds money for the PAC12, lol)
Yes you seem to be very educated on the simple topic of conference realignment.
My feel-goods are fine. You behaved like a biased jackass.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
nvspuds
- Posts: 1944
- Joined: November 17th, 2010, 6:32 pm
- Has thanked: 50 times
- Been thanked: 1400 times
Re: Thompson's Response
I have been watching whilst I visit with you cats..I can multitask from my couch like the best couch potatoes in the country.
- These users thanked the author nvspuds for the post:
- AggieFBObsession
-
AggieFBObsession
- Posts: 3199
- Joined: January 25th, 2011, 12:15 pm
- Has thanked: 6797 times
- Been thanked: 1237 times
Re: Thompson's Response
Good luck with your perspective. Just glad you're an Aggie fan. Go Aggies!BleedAggieBlue0 wrote: ↑September 18th, 2021, 1:04 pmMy feel-goods are fine. You behaved like a biased jackass.
-
BleedAggieBlue0
- Pick'em Champ - '14 Bowl
- Posts: 2835
- Joined: January 8th, 2012, 10:18 pm
- Has thanked: 242 times
- Been thanked: 78 times
Re: Thompson's Response
Lol.AggieFBObsession wrote:Good luck with your perspective. Just glad you're an Aggie fan. Go Aggies!BleedAggieBlue0 wrote: ↑September 18th, 2021, 1:04 pmMy feel-goods are fine. You behaved like a biased jackass.
Behave like an absolute jerk and then pretend like you didn’t.
“Just glad you’re an Aggie fan”
Jesus Christ pal.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
AggieFBObsession
- Posts: 3199
- Joined: January 25th, 2011, 12:15 pm
- Has thanked: 6797 times
- Been thanked: 1237 times
-
BleedAggieBlue0
- Pick'em Champ - '14 Bowl
- Posts: 2835
- Joined: January 8th, 2012, 10:18 pm
- Has thanked: 242 times
- Been thanked: 78 times
Re: Thompson's Response
Hilarious. Just because they mean something to you does not mean they mean something to others.AggieFBObsession wrote:Let's take a break. I'd never use those two words directed at anyone. JMHO.
I wouldn’t have responded to a perfectly reasonable question the way you did, but here you are.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk