Football Home Game
Sat, August 31, 2024
Sat, August 31, 2024
Basketball Home Game
Fri, November 1, 2024
Fri, November 1, 2024
Potential no mw
-
- Posts: 531
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 1:24 pm
- Location: Kaysville UT
- Has thanked: 114 times
- Been thanked: 87 times
Re: Potential no mw
If your premise is true (all the cards) then the mwc could offer a 72 hr plan. AND if they don’t like it THEN there is no loss to MWC.Aggieiester wrote: ↑August 6th, 2023, 8:37 amThe MWC holds all of the cards in this, all they have to do is stand together. The PAC doesn't have enough schools to continue as a conference, they have no other reasonable options outside adding MWC schools.
All of the benefits of what the PAC is offering is temporary, NCAA tournament credits, P5 status and the (I can't express myself without swearing) Apple TV contract, and does anybody really think that Cal and Stanford are in the league long term?
All the MWC has to do it tell the PAC schools, we stand together, offer all four PAC schools an invite and give them 72 hours to accept.
Will the MWC do this? probably not.
I don’t think premise is true.
If you get cal and Stanford to join (and wsu and OSU), there can be a revenue increase. Therefore, where is your negotiating stop point?
Many here said “max out what is best for you”.
We have a thread on “least valuable”. Why would that be relevant if MWC holds ALL the cards?
Would USU give up a million or so in equal split to get double revenue?
Cal and Stanford might have other options… so what do you do to get them to come and be part of your group?
It starts with the revenue increase they bring.
BYW I’m not “already conceding” the points above, I’m asking what you all think is that point. What do you think will be the discussion points ?
-
- Posts: 9623
- Joined: September 12th, 2018, 2:01 pm
- Has thanked: 3119 times
- Been thanked: 4488 times
Re: Potential no mw
I honestly don't think Cal/Stanford have a lot of options especially Cal. Both of them need to have a football conference or go independent for football. Cal cannot afford to go the independent route so they need to find a home for at least football. Newsflash the Big12, Big 10 and Sec are not making that phone call to them. I guess it is possible they get invited to the ACC but that would be a disaster from a travel/costs standpoint.Harcher wrote: ↑August 6th, 2023, 8:56 amIf your premise is true (all the cards) then the mwc could offer a 72 hr plan. AND if they don’t like it THEN there is no loss to MWC.Aggieiester wrote: ↑August 6th, 2023, 8:37 amThe MWC holds all of the cards in this, all they have to do is stand together. The PAC doesn't have enough schools to continue as a conference, they have no other reasonable options outside adding MWC schools.
All of the benefits of what the PAC is offering is temporary, NCAA tournament credits, P5 status and the (I can't express myself without swearing) Apple TV contract, and does anybody really think that Cal and Stanford are in the league long term?
All the MWC has to do it tell the PAC schools, we stand together, offer all four PAC schools an invite and give them 72 hours to accept.
Will the MWC do this? probably not.
I don’t think premise is true.
If you get cal and Stanford to join (and wsu and OSU), there can be a revenue increase. Therefore, where is your negotiating stop point?
Many here said “max out what is best for you”.
We have a thread on “least valuable”. Why would that be relevant if MWC holds ALL the cards?
Would USU give up a million or so in equal split to get double revenue?
Cal and Stanford might have other options… so what do you do to get them to come and be part of your group?
It starts with the revenue increase they bring.
BYW I’m not “already conceding” the points above, I’m asking what you all think is that point. What do you think will be the discussion points ?
-
- Posts: 654
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 10:45 am
- Location: West Point, Utah
- Has thanked: 150 times
- Been thanked: 43 times
Re: Potential no mw
I think we need to step back and remember the MW and PAC4 are not going to talking money at conference destruction levels.
When USCLA left the PAC they went from 20ish million to approx 70 million. Utah is jumping to get to nearly 40 million. That is 50% or more of their overall athletics budgets.
This years conference distribution was in total 6.6 million. Which is a small portion of the 40ish million budget. After changes we are at probably a 8-10 million per school deal if we keep everyone and just add a couple PAC schools. Dropping the supposed “dead weight” and having 7-9 schools join the PAC4 is not going to maintain the 20mil Apple bid. It’s gonna be only at most a couple million higher in the 10-12 million per school range. Not even enough to cover the extra legal costs for the guaranteed lawsuit that would be coming.
MW Conference destruction just ain’t happening.
When USCLA left the PAC they went from 20ish million to approx 70 million. Utah is jumping to get to nearly 40 million. That is 50% or more of their overall athletics budgets.
This years conference distribution was in total 6.6 million. Which is a small portion of the 40ish million budget. After changes we are at probably a 8-10 million per school deal if we keep everyone and just add a couple PAC schools. Dropping the supposed “dead weight” and having 7-9 schools join the PAC4 is not going to maintain the 20mil Apple bid. It’s gonna be only at most a couple million higher in the 10-12 million per school range. Not even enough to cover the extra legal costs for the guaranteed lawsuit that would be coming.
MW Conference destruction just ain’t happening.
- These users thanked the author AgSpaceCase for the post:
- Aggie84025
"Due to budget cutbacks the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned off...."
- 2004AG
- Posts: 12476
- Joined: November 16th, 2010, 11:42 am
- Has thanked: 808 times
- Been thanked: 1613 times
Re: Potential no mw
This is EXACTLY what I’ve been thinking. Why would we let four rump pac 12 schools dictate anything? The brand is dead. It’s no longer a p5 conference. They have nothing. Why in hell would they be calling any shots ?Aggieiester wrote:The MWC holds all of the cards in this, all they have to do is stand together. The PAC doesn't have enough schools to continue as a conference, they have no other reasonable options outside adding MWC schools.
All of the benefits of what the PAC is offering is temporary, NCAA tournament credits, P5 status and the (I can't express myself without swearing) Apple TV contract, and does anybody really think that Cal and Stanford are in the league long term?
All the MWC has to do it tell the PAC schools, we stand together, offer all four PAC schools an invite and give them 72 hours to accept.
Will the MWC do this? probably not.
If the MW bands together we call the the shots and we come out as the winners.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
- Posts: 10717
- Joined: November 14th, 2010, 11:56 pm
- Has thanked: 354 times
- Been thanked: 3176 times
Re: Potential no mw
Because USU is sucking third teat in that market and is not even close to bringing in the same market share as the other two, which happen to be located in the two most populous counties of that market and get the lion's share of media attention. This is no secret.Aglicious wrote: ↑August 6th, 2023, 12:41 amWhy does this keep getting spread as if it were gospel? USU is in the 4th largest media market in the MWC, WYO is dead last. USU's TV ratings are also some of the highest in the MWC. I'm not sure why this gets portrayed so differently than reality?Yossarian wrote: ↑August 6th, 2023, 12:01 amIf you're looking at market share or viewership, USU and Wyoming should be very nervous.The Old Bull wrote: ↑August 5th, 2023, 11:38 pmJFWAggie wrote: ↑August 5th, 2023, 6:38 pmDissolving the conference would take nine votes, who would be the three left out? I don't think we would be one of them, but this idea has me feeling uncomfortable. I think it would come down to the following schools:
New Mexico
San Jose
Nevada
Utah State
Hawaii
Wyoming
New PAC 12
Washington State
Oregon State
Stanford
Cal
SDSU
CSU
Air Force
Utah State
UNLV
Boise State
Nevada
Fresno State
After looking at other conference members message boards and their lists of the 9 members who would make up the new conference our message board is the only place you will find Utah State on the merger list.
This is concerning…
SDSU fans are the most against us… also they are the least informed as many of them seem to think you can do it with a rule change which they claim only takes 9 votes. I suppose it’s possible but it seems unlikely you would have 9 vote rule at all if it only takes 6 votes to change that rule?
Eutaw St. Aggie
- 2004AG
- Posts: 12476
- Joined: November 16th, 2010, 11:42 am
- Has thanked: 808 times
- Been thanked: 1613 times
Re: Potential no mw
Harcher wrote:If your premise is true (all the cards) then the mwc could offer a 72 hr plan. AND if they don’t like it THEN there is no loss to MWC.Aggieiester wrote: ↑August 6th, 2023, 8:37 amThe MWC holds all of the cards in this, all they have to do is stand together. The PAC doesn't have enough schools to continue as a conference, they have no other reasonable options outside adding MWC schools.
All of the benefits of what the PAC is offering is temporary, NCAA tournament credits, P5 status and the (I can't express myself without swearing) Apple TV contract, and does anybody really think that Cal and Stanford are in the league long term?
All the MWC has to do it tell the PAC schools, we stand together, offer all four PAC schools an invite and give them 72 hours to accept.
Will the MWC do this? probably not.
I don’t think premise is true.
If you get cal and Stanford to join (and wsu and OSU), there can be a revenue increase. Therefore, where is your negotiating stop point?
Many here said “max out what is best for you”.
We have a thread on “least valuable”. Why would that be relevant if MWC holds ALL the cards?
Would USU give up a million or so in equal split to get double revenue?
Cal and Stanford might have other options… so what do you do to get them to come and be part of your group?
It starts with the revenue increase they bring.
BYW I’m not “already conceding” the points above, I’m asking what you all think is that point. What do you think will be the discussion points ?
Cal and Stanford don’t have any options besides independence and that’s a horrible option.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
- Posts: 9623
- Joined: September 12th, 2018, 2:01 pm
- Has thanked: 3119 times
- Been thanked: 4488 times
Re: Potential no mw
We are certainly 3rd place in terms of owning the Utah market but even with that the Aggies pull in pretty good viewership compared to our conference mates.Yossarian wrote: ↑August 6th, 2023, 9:30 amBecause USU is sucking third teat in that market and is not even close to bringing in the same market share as the other two, which happen to be located in the two most populous counties of that market and get the lion's share of media attention. This is no secret.Aglicious wrote: ↑August 6th, 2023, 12:41 amWhy does this keep getting spread as if it were gospel? USU is in the 4th largest media market in the MWC, WYO is dead last. USU's TV ratings are also some of the highest in the MWC. I'm not sure why this gets portrayed so differently than reality?Yossarian wrote: ↑August 6th, 2023, 12:01 amIf you're looking at market share or viewership, USU and Wyoming should be very nervous.The Old Bull wrote: ↑August 5th, 2023, 11:38 pmJFWAggie wrote: ↑August 5th, 2023, 6:38 pmDissolving the conference would take nine votes, who would be the three left out? I don't think we would be one of them, but this idea has me feeling uncomfortable. I think it would come down to the following schools:
New Mexico
San Jose
Nevada
Utah State
Hawaii
Wyoming
New PAC 12
Washington State
Oregon State
Stanford
Cal
SDSU
CSU
Air Force
Utah State
UNLV
Boise State
Nevada
Fresno State
After looking at other conference members message boards and their lists of the 9 members who would make up the new conference our message board is the only place you will find Utah State on the merger list.
This is concerning…
SDSU fans are the most against us… also they are the least informed as many of them seem to think you can do it with a rule change which they claim only takes 9 votes. I suppose it’s possible but it seems unlikely you would have 9 vote rule at all if it only takes 6 votes to change that rule?
- These users thanked the author Aggie84025 for the post:
- SLB
-
- Posts: 13369
- Joined: November 3rd, 2016, 8:47 pm
- Has thanked: 1376 times
- Been thanked: 2478 times
Re: Potential no mw
This was something that I pointed out too. If Apple agrees with the PAC-MWC, it would still be solid money that keep everyone left together. Taking Hawaii, San Jose State, and Nevada out would help.Hoot wrote: ↑August 6th, 2023, 8:46 amI mean even if the Apple TV deal is temporary it’s still $20 mil per season so yeah I’d take that short term.Aggieiester wrote: ↑August 6th, 2023, 8:37 amThe MWC holds all of the cards in this, all they have to do is stand together. The PAC doesn't have enough schools to continue as a conference, they have no other reasonable options outside adding MWC schools.
All of the benefits of what the PAC is offering is temporary, NCAA tournament credits, P5 status and the (I can't express myself without swearing) Apple TV contract, and does anybody really think that Cal and Stanford are in the league long term?
All the MWC has to do it tell the PAC schools, we stand together, offer all four PAC schools an invite and give them 72 hours to accept.
Will the MWC do this? probably not.
-
- Posts: 13369
- Joined: November 3rd, 2016, 8:47 pm
- Has thanked: 1376 times
- Been thanked: 2478 times
Re: Potential no mw
Me and some others have talked about this for years.Aggie84025 wrote: ↑August 6th, 2023, 9:34 amWe are certainly 3rd place in terms of owning the Utah market but even with that the Aggies pull in pretty good viewership compared to our conference mates.Yossarian wrote: ↑August 6th, 2023, 9:30 amBecause USU is sucking third teat in that market and is not even close to bringing in the same market share as the other two, which happen to be located in the two most populous counties of that market and get the lion's share of media attention. This is no secret.Aglicious wrote: ↑August 6th, 2023, 12:41 amWhy does this keep getting spread as if it were gospel? USU is in the 4th largest media market in the MWC, WYO is dead last. USU's TV ratings are also some of the highest in the MWC. I'm not sure why this gets portrayed so differently than reality?Yossarian wrote: ↑August 6th, 2023, 12:01 amIf you're looking at market share or viewership, USU and Wyoming should be very nervous.The Old Bull wrote: ↑August 5th, 2023, 11:38 pmJFWAggie wrote: ↑August 5th, 2023, 6:38 pmDissolving the conference would take nine votes, who would be the three left out? I don't think we would be one of them, but this idea has me feeling uncomfortable. I think it would come down to the following schools:
New Mexico
San Jose
Nevada
Utah State
Hawaii
Wyoming
New PAC 12
Washington State
Oregon State
Stanford
Cal
SDSU
CSU
Air Force
Utah State
UNLV
Boise State
Nevada
Fresno State
After looking at other conference members message boards and their lists of the 9 members who would make up the new conference our message board is the only place you will find Utah State on the merger list.
This is concerning…
SDSU fans are the most against us… also they are the least informed as many of them seem to think you can do it with a rule change which they claim only takes 9 votes. I suppose it’s possible but it seems unlikely you would have 9 vote rule at all if it only takes 6 votes to change that rule?
-
- Posts: 838
- Joined: November 5th, 2010, 9:58 am
- Has thanked: 75 times
- Been thanked: 285 times
Re: Potential no mw
Some of you need to schedule an appointment with your therapist. The Aggies will be fine. We might not be the most watched school in our media market but that is true for almost all the members of our conference. With the trend for larger conferences and the uncertainty in college sports, artificially limiting the size of a merger is a non starter. The MWC will either add 2 or 4 schools. What we won't do is throw a school out.
Last edited by WasatchAggie on August 6th, 2023, 9:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
- These users thanked the author WasatchAggie for the post (total 2):
- SLB • USU78
-
- Posts: 2408
- Joined: November 5th, 2010, 10:10 pm
- Has thanked: 16 times
- Been thanked: 784 times
Re: Potential no mw
Never underestimate the whores SDSU and BSU and their tripping over themselves to get to the next $#@!2004AG wrote: ↑August 6th, 2023, 9:29 amThis is EXACTLY what I’ve been thinking. Why would we let four rump pac 12 schools dictate anything? The brand is dead. It’s no longer a p5 conference. They have nothing. Why in hell would they be calling any shots ?Aggieiester wrote:The MWC holds all of the cards in this, all they have to do is stand together. The PAC doesn't have enough schools to continue as a conference, they have no other reasonable options outside adding MWC schools.
All of the benefits of what the PAC is offering is temporary, NCAA tournament credits, P5 status and the (I can't express myself without swearing) Apple TV contract, and does anybody really think that Cal and Stanford are in the league long term?
All the MWC has to do it tell the PAC schools, we stand together, offer all four PAC schools an invite and give them 72 hours to accept.
Will the MWC do this? probably not.
If the MW bands together we call the the shots and we come out as the winners.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Regulator of Class
-
- Posts: 13369
- Joined: November 3rd, 2016, 8:47 pm
- Has thanked: 1376 times
- Been thanked: 2478 times
Re: Potential no mw
TV rankings from above
41) Washington State 907 K
45) Cal 857 K
47) Stanford 846 K
57) Oregon State 625 K
64) Colorado State 386 K
66) Boise State 353 K
68) Air Force 326 K
69) Utah State 324 K
80) Fresno State 220K
83) San Diego State 196K
87) Wyoming 154K
90) Nevada 116.4 K
105) San Jose State 53K
108) Hawaii 43 K
113) New Mexico 17.5K
I would point out that ease of access does impact these numbers
41) Washington State 907 K
45) Cal 857 K
47) Stanford 846 K
57) Oregon State 625 K
64) Colorado State 386 K
66) Boise State 353 K
68) Air Force 326 K
69) Utah State 324 K
80) Fresno State 220K
83) San Diego State 196K
87) Wyoming 154K
90) Nevada 116.4 K
105) San Jose State 53K
108) Hawaii 43 K
113) New Mexico 17.5K
I would point out that ease of access does impact these numbers
- NowhereLandAggie
- Posts: 4312
- Joined: November 8th, 2010, 4:25 pm
- Has thanked: 503 times
- Been thanked: 573 times
Re: Potential no mw
The $20 million Apple TV deal was only a proposal and never signed. It is done and gone.Aggieiester wrote: ↑August 6th, 2023, 8:37 amThe MWC holds all of the cards in this, all they have to do is stand together. The PAC doesn't have enough schools to continue as a conference, they have no other reasonable options outside adding MWC schools.
All of the benefits of what the PAC is offering is temporary, NCAA tournament credits, P5 status and the (I can't express myself without swearing) Apple TV contract, and does anybody really think that Cal and Stanford are in the league long term?
All the MWC has to do it tell the PAC schools, we stand together, offer all four PAC schools an invite and give them 72 hours to accept.
Will the MWC do this? probably not.
It was also a deal with Oregon and Washington in the conference with the other schools that also left. There is no big TV contract with the remaining PAC, in fact there is no TV contract whatsoever, that is why USC and UCLA originally left.
A merger will probably occur, lawyers are involved and I am sure SDSU's tournament credits and the remaining money from the PAC are looking for retention as this happens. I don't pretend to know all the legalities, but it is a lot more likely if both conferences agree.
Whatever happens, Gloria Nevarez better be in charge, and not George Kliavkoff.
- 2004AG
- Posts: 12476
- Joined: November 16th, 2010, 11:42 am
- Has thanked: 808 times
- Been thanked: 1613 times
Re: Potential no mw
They are idiots but it would take more than those two to screw this up completely.coolag wrote:Never underestimate the whores SDSU and BSU and their tripping over themselves to get to the next $#@!2004AG wrote: ↑August 6th, 2023, 9:29 amThis is EXACTLY what I’ve been thinking. Why would we let four rump pac 12 schools dictate anything? The brand is dead. It’s no longer a p5 conference. They have nothing. Why in hell would they be calling any shots ?Aggieiester wrote:The MWC holds all of the cards in this, all they have to do is stand together. The PAC doesn't have enough schools to continue as a conference, they have no other reasonable options outside adding MWC schools.
All of the benefits of what the PAC is offering is temporary, NCAA tournament credits, P5 status and the (I can't express myself without swearing) Apple TV contract, and does anybody really think that Cal and Stanford are in the league long term?
All the MWC has to do it tell the PAC schools, we stand together, offer all four PAC schools an invite and give them 72 hours to accept.
Will the MWC do this? probably not.
If the MW bands together we call the the shots and we come out as the winners.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Re: Potential no mw
17,500 is about what UNM averages for home attendance. And, having seen what a 17,500 crowd is like in Albuquerque, I can say that the true number is more like 1,750.SLB wrote: ↑August 6th, 2023, 10:00 amTV rankings from above
41) Washington State 907 K
45) Cal 857 K
47) Stanford 846 K
57) Oregon State 625 K
64) Colorado State 386 K
66) Boise State 353 K
68) Air Force 326 K
69) Utah State 324 K
80) Fresno State 220K
83) San Diego State 196K
87) Wyoming 154K
90) Nevada 116.4 K
105) San Jose State 53K
108) Hawaii 43 K
113) New Mexico 17.5K
I would point out that ease of access does impact these numbers
-
- Posts: 654
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 10:45 am
- Location: West Point, Utah
- Has thanked: 150 times
- Been thanked: 43 times
Re: Potential no mw
SLB wrote: ↑August 6th, 2023, 9:43 amThis was something that I pointed out too. If Apple agrees with the PAC-MWC, it would still be solid money that keep everyone left together. Taking Hawaii, San Jose State, and Nevada out would help.Hoot wrote: ↑August 6th, 2023, 8:46 amI mean even if the Apple TV deal is temporary it’s still $20 mil per season so yeah I’d take that short term.Aggieiester wrote: ↑August 6th, 2023, 8:37 amThe MWC holds all of the cards in this, all they have to do is stand together. The PAC doesn't have enough schools to continue as a conference, they have no other reasonable options outside adding MWC schools.
All of the benefits of what the PAC is offering is temporary, NCAA tournament credits, P5 status and the (I can't express myself without swearing) Apple TV contract, and does anybody really think that Cal and Stanford are in the league long term?
All the MWC has to do it tell the PAC schools, we stand together, offer all four PAC schools an invite and give them 72 hours to accept.
Will the MWC do this? probably not.
"Due to budget cutbacks the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned off...."
-
- Posts: 654
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 10:45 am
- Location: West Point, Utah
- Has thanked: 150 times
- Been thanked: 43 times
Re: Potential no mw
SLB wrote: ↑August 6th, 2023, 9:43 amThis was something that I pointed out too. If Apple agrees with the PAC-MWC, it would still be solid money that keep everyone left together. Taking Hawaii, San Jose State, and Nevada out would help.Hoot wrote: ↑August 6th, 2023, 8:46 amI mean even if the Apple TV deal is temporary it’s still $20 mil per season so yeah I’d take that short term.Aggieiester wrote: ↑August 6th, 2023, 8:37 amThe MWC holds all of the cards in this, all they have to do is stand together. The PAC doesn't have enough schools to continue as a conference, they have no other reasonable options outside adding MWC schools.
All of the benefits of what the PAC is offering is temporary, NCAA tournament credits, P5 status and the (I can't express myself without swearing) Apple TV contract, and does anybody really think that Cal and Stanford are in the league long term?
All the MWC has to do it tell the PAC schools, we stand together, offer all four PAC schools an invite and give them 72 hours to accept.
Will the MWC do this? probably not.
"Due to budget cutbacks the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned off...."
- Hoot
- Posts: 4291
- Joined: August 16th, 2021, 4:59 pm
- Location: Your moms house.
- Has thanked: 1272 times
- Been thanked: 2510 times
Re: Potential no mw
AgSpaceCase wrote: ↑August 6th, 2023, 10:09 amSLB wrote: ↑August 6th, 2023, 9:43 amThis was something that I pointed out too. If Apple agrees with the PAC-MWC, it would still be solid money that keep everyone left together. Taking Hawaii, San Jose State, and Nevada out would help.Hoot wrote: ↑August 6th, 2023, 8:46 amI mean even if the Apple TV deal is temporary it’s still $20 mil per season so yeah I’d take that short term.Aggieiester wrote: ↑August 6th, 2023, 8:37 amThe MWC holds all of the cards in this, all they have to do is stand together. The PAC doesn't have enough schools to continue as a conference, they have no other reasonable options outside adding MWC schools.
All of the benefits of what the PAC is offering is temporary, NCAA tournament credits, P5 status and the (I can't express myself without swearing) Apple TV contract, and does anybody really think that Cal and Stanford are in the league long term?
All the MWC has to do it tell the PAC schools, we stand together, offer all four PAC schools an invite and give them 72 hours to accept.
Will the MWC do this? probably not.
“My hypocrisy goes only so far.”
- Hoot
- Posts: 4291
- Joined: August 16th, 2021, 4:59 pm
- Location: Your moms house.
- Has thanked: 1272 times
- Been thanked: 2510 times
Re: Potential no mw
AgSpaceCase wrote: ↑August 6th, 2023, 10:08 amSLB wrote: ↑August 6th, 2023, 9:43 amThis was something that I pointed out too. If Apple agrees with the PAC-MWC, it would still be solid money that keep everyone left together. Taking Hawaii, San Jose State, and Nevada out would help.Hoot wrote: ↑August 6th, 2023, 8:46 amI mean even if the Apple TV deal is temporary it’s still $20 mil per season so yeah I’d take that short term.Aggieiester wrote: ↑August 6th, 2023, 8:37 amThe MWC holds all of the cards in this, all they have to do is stand together. The PAC doesn't have enough schools to continue as a conference, they have no other reasonable options outside adding MWC schools.
All of the benefits of what the PAC is offering is temporary, NCAA tournament credits, P5 status and the (I can't express myself without swearing) Apple TV contract, and does anybody really think that Cal and Stanford are in the league long term?
All the MWC has to do it tell the PAC schools, we stand together, offer all four PAC schools an invite and give them 72 hours to accept.
Will the MWC do this? probably not.
“My hypocrisy goes only so far.”
- Turtle
- Posts: 424
- Joined: December 11th, 2018, 7:10 pm
- Has thanked: 274 times
- Been thanked: 291 times
Re: Potential no mw
Hoot wrote: ↑August 6th, 2023, 11:33 amAgSpaceCase wrote: ↑August 6th, 2023, 10:09 amSLB wrote: ↑August 6th, 2023, 9:43 amThis was something that I pointed out too. If Apple agrees with the PAC-MWC, it would still be solid money that keep everyone left together. Taking Hawaii, San Jose State, and Nevada out would help.Hoot wrote: ↑August 6th, 2023, 8:46 amI mean even if the Apple TV deal is temporary it’s still $20 mil per season so yeah I’d take that short term.Aggieiester wrote: ↑August 6th, 2023, 8:37 amThe MWC holds all of the cards in this, all they have to do is stand together. The PAC doesn't have enough schools to continue as a conference, they have no other reasonable options outside adding MWC schools.
All of the benefits of what the PAC is offering is temporary, NCAA tournament credits, P5 status and the (I can't express myself without swearing) Apple TV contract, and does anybody really think that Cal and Stanford are in the league long term?
All the MWC has to do it tell the PAC schools, we stand together, offer all four PAC schools an invite and give them 72 hours to accept.
Will the MWC do this? probably not.
- Turtle
- Posts: 424
- Joined: December 11th, 2018, 7:10 pm
- Has thanked: 274 times
- Been thanked: 291 times
Re: Potential no mw
Hoot wrote: ↑August 6th, 2023, 11:34 amAgSpaceCase wrote: ↑August 6th, 2023, 10:08 amSLB wrote: ↑August 6th, 2023, 9:43 amThis was something that I pointed out too. If Apple agrees with the PAC-MWC, it would still be solid money that keep everyone left together. Taking Hawaii, San Jose State, and Nevada out would help.Hoot wrote: ↑August 6th, 2023, 8:46 amI mean even if the Apple TV deal is temporary it’s still $20 mil per season so yeah I’d take that short term.Aggieiester wrote: ↑August 6th, 2023, 8:37 amThe MWC holds all of the cards in this, all they have to do is stand together. The PAC doesn't have enough schools to continue as a conference, they have no other reasonable options outside adding MWC schools.
All of the benefits of what the PAC is offering is temporary, NCAA tournament credits, P5 status and the (I can't express myself without swearing) Apple TV contract, and does anybody really think that Cal and Stanford are in the league long term?
All the MWC has to do it tell the PAC schools, we stand together, offer all four PAC schools an invite and give them 72 hours to accept.
Will the MWC do this? probably not.
- BearLakeMonster
- Posts: 2403
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 10:45 am
- Location: The Caribbean of the Rockies
- Has thanked: 385 times
- Been thanked: 393 times
Re: Potential no mw
- These users thanked the author BearLakeMonster for the post:
- LarryTheAggie
"The evil I can tolerate. But the stupidity... Just knowing we're in the same genus makes me embarrassed to call myself homo!"
-
- Posts: 14182
- Joined: March 11th, 2011, 9:12 pm
- Has thanked: 932 times
- Been thanked: 1969 times
Re: Potential no mw
MHver seems to have a byu soft spot and loves going after the other schools in Utah. Keeps saying he is “hearing from sources” every possible outcome so that if one of then comes true he can claim insight.
-
- Aggie Insider, Pick'em Champ - '18 Kickoff, '19 Weekly
- Posts: 19751
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 8:17 pm
- Location: Smithfield, Utah
- Has thanked: 23819 times
- Been thanked: 16457 times
- Contact:
Re: Potential no mw
Brace yourselves for the worst. I'm being told we are likely on the outside looking in.
- These users thanked the author aggies22 for the post:
- trevordude
-
- Posts: 494
- Joined: March 3rd, 2014, 7:52 pm
- Location: Logan, Utah
- Has thanked: 522 times
- Been thanked: 294 times
Re: Potential no mw
This is one of the few times I'm hoping you're wrong as an insider.
- These users thanked the author FromLItoLogan for the post:
- aggies22
-
- Posts: 3087
- Joined: July 4th, 2013, 12:04 pm
- Has thanked: 1835 times
- Been thanked: 2504 times
Re: Potential no mw
If we are on the outside looking in, I assume that means the pac4 are taking some of the MW and some of the AAC. Meaning probably half of the MW is sticking around. We will be fine. Unless we are one of like 3 teams left in the mountian west... in that case, I hate Scott Barnes.
- These users thanked the author LarryTheAggie for the post:
- Aggie formerly in Hawaii
- travelingagg
- Posts: 1904
- Joined: November 13th, 2010, 10:29 am
- Location: Las Vegas, NV
- Has thanked: 570 times
- Been thanked: 762 times
Re: Potential no mw
True; however, we saw our fanbase and interest grow when we went from the Big Sky to WAC, then from WAC to MWC, since the quality of our opponents increased. We would likely see an increase in interest in our USU vs. Oregon State and USU vs. Washington State games. Sames goes for CAL and Stanford games, though I understand those are less likely. And adding those 2-4 schools to the MWC group increases the full conference's profile.Yossarian wrote: ↑August 6th, 2023, 9:30 amBecause USU is sucking third teat in that market and is not even close to bringing in the same market share as the other two, which happen to be located in the two most populous counties of that market and get the lion's share of media attention. This is no secret.Aglicious wrote: ↑August 6th, 2023, 12:41 amWhy does this keep getting spread as if it were gospel? USU is in the 4th largest media market in the MWC, WYO is dead last. USU's TV ratings are also some of the highest in the MWC. I'm not sure why this gets portrayed so differently than reality?Yossarian wrote: ↑August 6th, 2023, 12:01 amIf you're looking at market share or viewership, USU and Wyoming should be very nervous.The Old Bull wrote: ↑August 5th, 2023, 11:38 pmJFWAggie wrote: ↑August 5th, 2023, 6:38 pmDissolving the conference would take nine votes, who would be the three left out? I don't think we would be one of them, but this idea has me feeling uncomfortable. I think it would come down to the following schools:
New Mexico
San Jose
Nevada
Utah State
Hawaii
Wyoming
New PAC 12
Washington State
Oregon State
Stanford
Cal
SDSU
CSU
Air Force
Utah State
UNLV
Boise State
Nevada
Fresno State
After looking at other conference members message boards and their lists of the 9 members who would make up the new conference our message board is the only place you will find Utah State on the merger list.
This is concerning…
SDSU fans are the most against us… also they are the least informed as many of them seem to think you can do it with a rule change which they claim only takes 9 votes. I suppose it’s possible but it seems unlikely you would have 9 vote rule at all if it only takes 6 votes to change that rule?
Jordan Nathan’s #27 Fan
- travelingagg
- Posts: 1904
- Joined: November 13th, 2010, 10:29 am
- Location: Las Vegas, NV
- Has thanked: 570 times
- Been thanked: 762 times
-
- Posts: 494
- Joined: March 3rd, 2014, 7:52 pm
- Location: Logan, Utah
- Has thanked: 522 times
- Been thanked: 294 times
Re: Potential no mw
Yeah but what half? It will likely be SJSU, Hawaii, Wyoming, UNM, and UNR with us if we're left behind. I don't think that's fine. Yeah we're gonna be cash rich but we're gonna be conference poor. I'd rather it be the other way around. And what happens when this new PAC fails because cross country is too much? Do we leave them out in the cold?LarryTheAggie wrote: ↑August 6th, 2023, 1:06 pmIf we are on the outside looking in, I assume that means the pac4 are taking some of the MW and some of the AAC. Meaning probably half of the MW is sticking around. We will be fine. Unless we are one of like 3 teams left in the mountian west... in that case, I hate Scott Barnes.
-
- Posts: 281
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 11:14 am
- Has thanked: 49 times
- Been thanked: 83 times
-
- Posts: 8120
- Joined: October 22nd, 2016, 1:06 am
- Has thanked: 2397 times
- Been thanked: 2620 times
Re: Potential no mw
LarryTheAggie wrote: ↑August 6th, 2023, 1:06 pmIf we are on the outside looking in, I assume that means the pac4 are taking some of the MW and some of the AAC. Meaning probably half of the MW is sticking around. We will be fine. Unless we are one of like 3 teams left in the mountian west... in that case, I hate Scott Barnes.
Yeah if the Pac survives and we are left out it means they are taking teams from more conferences than just the MW. No way we would be left out of a straight MW-Pac merger unless they only took 4 teams(which wouldn't happen since nobody is going to agree to a giant buyout to join Wazzu, OSU and Cal).
- flying_scotsman2.0
- Posts: 3595
- Joined: January 23rd, 2018, 12:29 pm
- Location: The Mighty City-State of Roy, Utah
- Has thanked: 6061 times
- Been thanked: 2296 times
Re: Potential no mw
Does this mean we’re one of the three that gets screwed if the conference votes to dissolve? How can that be… how is sjsu, Nevada, Hawaii, Wyoming, New Mexico, Fresno ahead of us?
- These users thanked the author flying_scotsman2.0 for the post:
- Gidbob
-
- Posts: 7922
- Joined: November 3rd, 2010, 12:07 pm
- Has thanked: 412 times
- Been thanked: 5002 times
Re: Potential no mw
Yeah, I love you 22, but you can’t come in here and lob this grenade with no context about what you’re hearing. That’s cruel!flying_scotsman2.0 wrote: ↑August 6th, 2023, 1:32 pmDoes this mean we’re one of the three that gets screwed if the conference votes to dissolve? How can that be… how is sjsu, Nevada, Hawaii, Wyoming, New Mexico, Fresno ahead of us?
Hearing we may be left to pick up the pieces in a “bottom 3” with SJSU and Hawaii is much different than being one of 6 or 7 Mountain West schools building a new conference with a (I can't express myself without swearing) ton of buyout money.
I would be fine being flush with cash and building a new league with UNM, Wyoming, and Nevada.
If we’re in the bottom three with SJSU and Hawaii, we’re completely (I can't express myself without swearing) and I see Big Sky in our future. Those are two very different prospects. Can you add some context before the board meltdown commences?
- These users thanked the author ineptimusprime for the post (total 4):
- Aggie formerly in Hawaii • Zaggie07 • vegasaggie • Gidbob
-
- Posts: 8120
- Joined: October 22nd, 2016, 1:06 am
- Has thanked: 2397 times
- Been thanked: 2620 times
Re: Potential no mw
Yeah love 22, but that seems really hard to believe. We might not be highest rung on the ladder, but we aren't that low.flying_scotsman2.0 wrote: ↑August 6th, 2023, 1:32 pmDoes this mean we’re one of the three that gets screwed if the conference votes to dissolve? How can that be… how is sjsu, Nevada, Hawaii, Wyoming, New Mexico, Fresno ahead of us?