If true, it's completely laughable

[ragtimejoe1]

I read that the addition of pac schools could jump our TV deal from 4 million to 10 per school. All pure speculation but is guess that value wouldn't change with 9 schools which would result in more per school. St Mary's and Gonzaga could also be in play. Who knows?

I guess I thought that if there were three obvious dead weight schools then dissolving and reforming would make sense but if the bottom half is roughly equivalent it won't happen.

All depends on media. Say that 10 million is correct and it doesn't matter if it's 160 mill for 16 teams or 12 teams, the difference is 10 mill/team vs nearly 13.5 mill/team, respectively. The difference is nearly what we get now. In that scenario the bottom teams don't make a difference but you'd have addition by subtraction.

The lure of a Gonzaga, St. Mary's, suds, Stanford, Cal, and perhaps unlv in bball might carry some weight, too?

I have no idea how this next phase will work out so I'm not predicting that. I'm just saying there are several scenarios and not all good for us. Some would be really good.

 

[LanderPoke]

Why would they do that?

Any contract the PAC could get now would probably be on par with the MW

I read that the addition of pac schools could jump our TV deal from 4 million to 10 per school. All pure speculation but is guess that value wouldn't change with 9 schools which would result in more per school. St Mary's and Gonzaga could also be in play. Who knows?

Stanford and Cal are not coming. They will not be in a conference with any MWC schools. WSU and OSU don’t raise our profile much at all

 

[ragtimejoe1]

I read that the addition of pac schools could jump our TV deal from 4 million to 10 per school. All pure speculation but is guess that value wouldn't change with 9 schools which would result in more per school. St Mary's and Gonzaga could also be in play. Who knows?

Stanford and Cal are not coming. They will not be in a conference with any MWC schools. WSU and OSU don’t raise our profile much at all

I don't disagree in terms of likelihood but I could see their administration viewing it as a temporary life raft until the next playoff negotiations. We're moving to a 16 team playoff and a league of 50 or 60 or ? whatever teams.

If they can't get a decent media deal as independents but can secure a home for a few years at 10-15 million with minimal travel costs, maybe.

I don't know. Just saying there are a lot of variables.

 

[DamThatRiver22]

Stanford doesn't need a life raft, lol. They'll go indie in a heartbeat if needed. I think they're eventually headed to the B1G, but a year or two of independence won't be an issue at all. Stanford can basically print money indefinitely, they're a national brand, and they consistently have the nation's top-ranked athletic department. They won't touch the MWC with a ten-foot pole, even if it's under the PAC name.

People seriously underestimate just how much money Stanford has, and how much they could raise in an instant if need be.

Cal is an interesting story. While they're just as academically snobby as Stanford, they're buried under a mountain of crippling debt. And while they do decent in some non-revenue sports, their administration doesn't seem to give two sh**s about athletics in general. Nobody...not even the Cal fans I've talked to...knows what's gonna happen. They could just as easily park their sports in FCS, or hop on a wagon to the B1G eventually with Stanford. It could literally go either way, lmao.

Yeah, but it'll be great to have Dickert lose in Laramie. Screw that guy.

Lol, what? Why the sudden hate for Dickert? Guy did an outstanding job here, and then took a job that was a MASSIVE upgrade for him and eventually led to his dream job of being a P5 head coach. Same thing Hazelton did (what, do we hate Scottie now too?); same thing literally every coach does or would do. And yea, a couple people followed him. So what?

Dickert's a great guy and I'm happy he got his opportunities; he deserved them.

Why do some people on this board have this weird, irrational, seething hatred for every coach, player, resident, etc. that doesn't tie themselves to Laramie for all eternity?

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Stanford most definitely has the chops to go Indy. If the MWC offers them unequal revenue with no exit penalty for 2 - 3 years. Who knows. Realistically, 4 quality ooc teams and a mwc schedule wouldn't be that much worse than Indy and Indy would always be an option if the b1g came calling.

For cal, I imagine california politics may also come into play.

 

[flyfishwyo]

Stanford doesn't need a life raft, lol. They'll go indie in a heartbeat if needed. I think they're eventually headed to the B1G, but a year or two of independence won't be an issue at all. Stanford can basically print money indefinitely, they're a national brand, and they consistently have the nation's top-ranked athletic department. They won't touch the MWC with a ten-foot pole, even if it's under the PAC name.

People seriously underestimate just how much money Stanford has, and how much they could raise in an instant if need be.

Cal is an interesting story. While they're just as academically snobby as Stanford, they're buried under a mountain of crippling debt. And while they do decent in some non-revenue sports, their administration doesn't seem to give two sh**s about athletics in general. Nobody...not even the Cal fans I've talked to...knows what's gonna happen. They could just as easily park their sports in FCS, or hop on a wagon to the B1G eventually with Stanford. It could literally go either way, lmao.

Yeah, but it'll be great to have Dickert lose in Laramie. Screw that guy.

Lol, what? Why the sudden hate for Dickert? Guy did an outstanding job here, and then took a job that was a MASSIVE upgrade for him and eventually led to his dream job of being a P5 head coach. Same thing Hazelton did (what, do we hate Scottie now too?); same thing literally every coach does or would do. And yea, a couple people followed him. So what?

Dickert's a great guy and I'm happy he got his opportunities; he deserved them.

Why do some people on this board have this weird, irrational, seething hatred for every coach, player, resident, etc. that doesn't tie themselves to Laramie for all eternity?

Dickert agreed to stay as DC for two years and jumped ship early. And he took half the defensive staff with him and took a few recruits he'd been working while at UW. He did damage to the program on his way out. I don't really care if "that's the way college football is now." I don't have to like how he left. Seems pretty low-character to me. He was chasing the P5 job and, as we're learning, it isn't going to turn out that way. Karma?

Compare him to Pete Kaligis. He's a high-character great guy. Pete left the right way. It was time for new challenge and he transitioned to a new job without kicking anyone on his way out. I'll always wish the best for him.

 

[laxwyo]

Stanford doesn't need a life raft, lol. They'll go indie in a heartbeat if needed. I think they're eventually headed to the B1G, but a year or two of independence won't be an issue at all. Stanford can basically print money indefinitely, they're a national brand, and they consistently have the nation's top-ranked athletic department. They won't touch the MWC with a ten-foot pole, even if it's under the PAC name.

People seriously underestimate just how much money Stanford has, and how much they could raise in an instant if need be.

No one gives a shit about Stanford sports. Yeah, they might have money but they don't have a sports brand....at least recently. I'm sure they'd be fine indy.

I think it'd be good for them to announce going Indy sooner rather than later so that the cord is pulled on PAC

 

[ZapPoke]

From CBS Sports: It's not immediately clear what the future holds for the Pac-12 conference with just four remaining members, though according to Yahoo Sports, leaders from the four remaining schools have discussed possible paths forward including a potential partnership or merger with the Mountain West.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

If and HUGE if the 160 mill is attainable for mwc 16, I'd offer the pac 4 17-18 mill/year for 3 years and no exit fee. That leaves 7-9 mill/school for mwc. After 3 years, equal sharing and large exit fees. That gives the pac 4 time to either adjust budgets or find a landing spot. In the meantime it doubles our TV revenue, probably gives more access to better bowls, and could help lure the Zags.

 

[DamThatRiver22]

No one gives a poop about Stanford sports. Yeah, they might have money but they don't have a sports brand....at least recently.

My dude, they literally had to change the rules/criteria of the Director's Cup because of Stanford's dominance, and it still didn't change anything. 26 wins, including the most recent one, since 1993.

You don't repeatedly get ranked the nation's top athletic department by "not having a brand" and "no one giving a sh**" about you. Lol. They may not have had much recent success in football/MBB, but their athletic program overall is a national powerhouse. (Also, their football program actually isn't THAT far removed from success. They had a decent run from 2009-2018 or so.)

It's amazing the bubble some of you live in.

 

[laxwyo]

No one gives a poop about Stanford sports. Yeah, they might have money but they don't have a sports brand....at least recently.

My dude, they literally had to change the rules/criteria of the Director's Cup because of Stanford's dominance, and it still didn't change anything. 26 wins, including the most recent one, since 1993.

You don't repeatedly get ranked the nation's top athletic department by "not having a brand" and "no one giving a sh**" about you. Lol. They may not have had much recent success in football/MBB, but their athletic program overall is a national powerhouse.

It's amazing the bubble some of you live in.

No one cares about the Directors Cup. If people cared, Stanford would be in a real conference right now. But there Colorado is and Stanford isn't. You are no where near as smart as you think you are.

 

[307bball]

My dude, they literally had to change the rules/criteria of the Director's Cup because of Stanford's dominance, and it still didn't change anything. 26 wins, including the most recent one, since 1993.

You don't repeatedly get ranked the nation's top athletic department by "not having a brand" and "no one giving a sh**" about you. Lol. They may not have had much recent success in football/MBB, but their athletic program overall is a national powerhouse.

It's amazing the bubble some of you live in.

No one cares about the Directors Cup. If people cared, Stanford would be in a real conference right now. But there Colorado is and Stanford isn't. You are no where near as smart as you think you are.

Not true...and Stanford will do fine as independent or bring immense value to whatever conference they are in. To the extent that this is about football broadcast money (and it totally is) then Stanford is not going to be calling the shots but make no mistake...they are among the blue-est of blue bloods in college athletics.

 

[DamThatRiver22]

No one cares about the Directors Cup. If people cared, Stanford would be in a real conference right now. But there Colorado is and Stanford isn't. You are no where near as smart as you think you are.

Stanford shot themselves in the foot regarding expansion/realignment due to unreasonable academic expectations and other factors causing them to miss a very fast moving train that we're not even entirely sure they wanted to hop on. (ASU almost did the same thing, because their president had the same mentality and wanted to stick with Stanford and Cal.) Stanford will be either a powerful independent a la ND, or they'll end up in the B1G soon.

Stanford's athletic department is one of the most well-respected, successful, and powerful athletic departments in the country. This isn't even a question amongst people who actually follow college athletics as a whole on a national level.

By the way, if you're just wanting to yammer about football specifically...from 2009-2018 (not exactly ancient history) Stanford was #2 in the country in TV viewership, with an average record of 10-3, two Top 5 seasons, five Top 10s, three conference titles, three NY6 wins, and two more NY6 appearances. And even just from 2015-2019, Stanford was #25 in the nation in TV viewership (so much for "not having a brand").

I also suspect that you have no idea what it actually takes to win a Director's Cup, because 26 wins since 1993 in spite of rule changes indirectly intended to stop you is some crazy sh** that speaks volumes about your athletic department.

You have literally no idea what you're talking about. It has nothing to do with thinking I'm smart....it's literal facts, math, rankings, and statistics that aren't even remotely questioned by anyone, in any community, besides...well, you, here.

Based on this and other debates we've had, I'm beginning to think you're just trolling for the sake of trolling...because no matter how much of a mountain of literal facts are presented to you, you prefer to just go with your "feelings" and throw insults my way while spewing the most outlandish takes on the face of the planet.

 

[LanderPoke]

All I know is Stanford is not currently great at the three college sports I care about. Football, men’s bball and wrestling . I bet they dominate water polo , golf and archery and whatever though

 

[DamThatRiver22]

Dickert agreed to stay as DC for two years and jumped ship early. And he took half the defensive staff with him and took a few recruits he'd been working while at UW. He did damage to the program on his way out. I don't really care if "that's the way college football is now." I don't have to like how he left. Seems pretty low-character to me. He was chasing the P5 job

This is a completely unreasonable take in the modern sports world.

Firstly, had Dickert underperformed/been dogsh**, half this board would've been calling for his job after year one anyway. Let's not pretend that we as fans, or the University of Wyoming as an employer for that matter, have anywhere near the loyalty that some of you expect out of coaches, students, and recruits.

Secondly, other staff members, along with recruits and athletes in general, are independent human beings that make their own decisions....decisions that can be influenced by another staff member, sure....but are also influenced by family, friends, and their own damned ambitions. Laying their decisions 100% at Dickert's feet is some disingenuous sh**.

Thirdly, almost any other coach in CFB in Dickert's shoes would've taken that job. Similarly, 90% of Wyoming fans...hell, 90% of human beings in general...would take an equivalent opportunity for advancement in a heartbeat. This moral superiority crap is absolute nonsense.

Bohl himself understood the opportunity that Dickert had (and how that reflected on himself as well) and why he had to take it.

He at least did it the right way and did it during the typical coaching "free agency", allowing Bohl time to land Sawvel without interruption to camps/developments/scheme introduction. And Bohl isn't an incapable defensive coach himself; Dickert knew there would be a decently smooth transition. To say he completely went about it the wrong way is literal nonsense.

Ultimately, I take the exact same position on this as I do with transfers and recruits: I'm not going to direct ire to anyone making a business decision that improves their lives and careers...not to mention has very real impacts on their families. Does it suck sometimes and put us at a disadvantage? Sure. But I'm not gonna suddenly have a personal vendetta about it, lmao.

Again, Dickert's an extremely likable guy, exceptionally talented, and did his job extremely well while he was here. I'm glad he got the opportunities he did and I wish nothing but the best for him...and I think it's bizarre and frankly immature to hold a grudge over it or claim it's "low character", lol. What happened was entirely normal, and I certainly didn't expect Dickert to be suddenly catching strays in this thread.

Karma?

I mean, he's still the [very popular] head coach of a nationally-recognized state school and makes a f*ckton more money (with more benefits) than you or I, so.....whatever makes you feel better I guess.

 

[flyfishwyo]

Dickert agreed to stay as DC for two years and jumped ship early. And he took half the defensive staff with him and took a few recruits he'd been working while at UW. He did damage to the program on his way out. I don't really care if "that's the way college football is now." I don't have to like how he left. Seems pretty low-character to me. He was chasing the P5 job

This is a completely unreasonable take in the modern sports world.

Firstly, had Dickert underperformed/been dogsh**, half this board would've been calling for his job after year one anyway. Let's not pretend that we as fans, or the University of Wyoming as an employer for that matter, have anywhere near the loyalty that some of you expect out of coaches, students, and recruits.

Secondly, other staff members, along with recruits and athletes in general, are independent human beings that make their own decisions....decisions that can be influenced by another staff member, sure....but are also influenced by family, friends, and their own damned ambitions. Laying their decisions 100% at Dickert's feet is some disingenuous sh**.

Thirdly, almost any other coach in CFB in Dickert's shoes would've taken that job. Similarly, 90% of Wyoming fans...hell, 90% of human beings in general...would take an equivalent opportunity for advancement in a heartbeat. This moral superiority crap is absolute nonsense.

Bohl himself understood the opportunity that Dickert had (and how that reflected on himself as well) and why he had to take it.

He at least did it the right way and did it during the typical coaching "free agency", allowing Bohl time to land Sawvel without interruption to camps/developments/scheme introduction. And Bohl isn't an incapable defensive coach himself; Dickert knew there would be a decently smooth transition. To say he completely went about it the wrong way is literal nonsense.

Ultimately, I take the exact same position on this as I do with transfers and recruits: I'm not going to direct ire to anyone making a business decision that improves their lives and careers...not to mention has very real impacts on their families. Does it suck sometimes and put us at a disadvantage? Sure. But I'm not gonna suddenly have a personal vendetta about it, lmao.

Again, Dickert's an extremely likable guy, exceptionally talented, and did his job extremely well while he was here. I'm glad he got the opportunities he did and I wish nothing but the best for him...and I think it's bizarre and frankly immature to hold a grudge over it or claim it's "low character", lol. What happened was entirely normal, and I certainly didn't expect Dickert to be suddenly catching strays in this thread.

Karma?

I mean, he's still the [very popular] head coach of a nationally-recognized state school and makes a f*ckton more money (with more benefits) than you or I, so.....whatever makes you feel better I guess.

I'll say it again. I don't really care if "that's the way college football is now." I don't have to like how he left. I didn't call for his head, or threaten his children. I hope he loses when he comes to Laramie.

As for how he left, Bohl was NOT happy about it. That wasn't any secret, either, so I'm not sure where you got that idea. If he was a talented DC (I believe he is a good coach), then the market would have been there for him the following year, too. After he followed through on the agreement he had with his boss. Remember, Bohl gave him his first D1 job.

The couple of times that I met Dickert, he seemed like an decent enough person. But this is sports. Decent people make choices I don't agree with and I don't have to like him. I certainly don't have to like the way he left. I think it was a move that ignored loyalty and showed a lack of character. And, I'll smile a little when he's the head coach of a team that's not P5 anymore. Karma.

I'm pretty tired of the "business decision" cop-out. Any business leader who's been successful over the long haul knows that putting short term profits over people doesn't usually end well. It usually doesn't work well for coaches, either.

The list of coaches I don't like is pretty long. So is the list of coaches I do. This is sports, so I don't have to be rational about it. Anyone from the Urban Meyer coaching tree is on the dislike list. Kyle Whittingham, Ryan Day, Steve Addazio, Gary Anderson, Mel Tucker, and Jeremy Pruitt. Screw those guys. I dislike the BYU coaching group for obvious reasons, except for Mike Leach. The Pirate is an all-time great. Jim Harbaugh is weird as hell, but he's on my like list. So is Lane Kiffin. He's seemed to learn about the value of loyalty the hard way. Jerry Kill, Tracey Claeys, and Jay Sawvell are on the like list. Note, Sawvell got a raw deal at Wake Forest. Bohl gave him a shot and he's taken full advantage of the opportunity. Now he's a Wyoming great.

As for Dickert, rational or not, screw that guy.

 

[307bball]

This is a completely unreasonable take in the modern sports world.

Firstly, had Dickert underperformed/been dogsh**, half this board would've been calling for his job after year one anyway. Let's not pretend that we as fans, or the University of Wyoming as an employer for that matter, have anywhere near the loyalty that some of you expect out of coaches, students, and recruits.

Secondly, other staff members, along with recruits and athletes in general, are independent human beings that make their own decisions....decisions that can be influenced by another staff member, sure....but are also influenced by family, friends, and their own damned ambitions. Laying their decisions 100% at Dickert's feet is some disingenuous sh**.

Thirdly, almost any other coach in CFB in Dickert's shoes would've taken that job. Similarly, 90% of Wyoming fans...hell, 90% of human beings in general...would take an equivalent opportunity for advancement in a heartbeat. This moral superiority crap is absolute nonsense.

Bohl himself understood the opportunity that Dickert had (and how that reflected on himself as well) and why he had to take it.

He at least did it the right way and did it during the typical coaching "free agency", allowing Bohl time to land Sawvel without interruption to camps/developments/scheme introduction. And Bohl isn't an incapable defensive coach himself; Dickert knew there would be a decently smooth transition. To say he completely went about it the wrong way is literal nonsense.

Ultimately, I take the exact same position on this as I do with transfers and recruits: I'm not going to direct ire to anyone making a business decision that improves their lives and careers...not to mention has very real impacts on their families. Does it suck sometimes and put us at a disadvantage? Sure. But I'm not gonna suddenly have a personal vendetta about it, lmao.

Again, Dickert's an extremely likable guy, exceptionally talented, and did his job extremely well while he was here. I'm glad he got the opportunities he did and I wish nothing but the best for him...and I think it's bizarre and frankly immature to hold a grudge over it or claim it's "low character", lol. What happened was entirely normal, and I certainly didn't expect Dickert to be suddenly catching strays in this thread.



I mean, he's still the [very popular] head coach of a nationally-recognized state school and makes a f*ckton more money (with more benefits) than you or I, so.....whatever makes you feel better I guess.

I'll say it again. I don't really care if "that's the way college football is now." I don't have to like how he left. I didn't call for his head, or threaten his children. I hope he loses when he comes to Laramie.

As for how he left, Bohl was NOT happy about it. That wasn't any secret, either, so I'm not sure where you got that idea. If he was a talented DC (I believe he is a good coach), then the market would have been there for him the following year, too. After he followed through on the agreement he had with his boss. Remember, Bohl gave him his first D1 job.

The couple of times that I met Dickert, he seemed like an decent enough person. But this is sports. Decent people make choices I don't agree with and I don't have to like him. I certainly don't have to like the way he left. I think it was a move that ignored loyalty and showed a lack of character. And, I'll smile a little when he's the head coach of a team that's not P5 anymore. Karma.

I'm pretty tired of the "business decision" cop-out. Any business leader who's been successful over the long haul knows that putting short term profits over people doesn't usually end well. It usually doesn't work well for coaches, either.

The list of coaches I don't like is pretty long. So is the list of coaches I do. This is sports, so I don't have to be rational about it. Anyone from the Urban Meyer coaching tree is on the dislike list. Kyle Whittingham, Ryan Day, Steve Addazio, Gary Anderson, Mel Tucker, and Jeremy Pruitt. Screw those guys. I dislike the BYU coaching group for obvious reasons, except for Mike Leach. The Pirate is an all-time great. Jim Harbaugh is weird as hell, but he's on my like list. So is Lane Kiffin. He's seemed to learn about the value of loyalty the hard way. Jerry Kill, Tracey Claeys, and Jay Sawvell are on the like list. Note, Sawvell got a raw deal at Wake Forest. Bohl gave him a shot and he's taken full advantage of the opportunity. Now he's a Wyoming great.

As for Dickert, rational or not, screw that guy.

Well...I still don't think it's the "correct" take... But if you just say you are going to take rationality off the table... Actually kinda of respect the old school "go down with the ship" mentality.

 

[laxwyo]

No one cares about the Directors Cup. If people cared, Stanford would be in a real conference right now. But there Colorado is and Stanford isn't. You are no where near as smart as you think you are.

Stanford shot themselves in the foot regarding expansion/realignment due to unreasonable academic expectations and other factors causing them to miss a very fast moving train that we're not even entirely sure they wanted to hop on. (ASU almost did the same thing, because their president had the same mentality and wanted to stick with Stanford and Cal.) Stanford will be either a powerful independent a la ND, or they'll end up in the B1G soon.

Stanford's athletic department is one of the most well-respected, successful, and powerful athletic departments in the country. This isn't even a question amongst people who actually follow college athletics as a whole on a national level.

By the way, if you're just wanting to yammer about football specifically...from 2009-2018 (not exactly ancient history) Stanford was #2 in the country in TV viewership, with an average record of 10-3, two Top 5 seasons, five Top 10s, three conference titles, three NY6 wins, and two more NY6 appearances. And even just from 2015-2019, Stanford was #25 in the nation in TV viewership (so much for "not having a brand").

I also suspect that you have no idea what it actually takes to win a Director's Cup, because 26 wins since 1993 in spite of rule changes indirectly intended to stop you is some crazy sh** that speaks volumes about your athletic department.

You have literally no idea what you're talking about. It has nothing to do with thinking I'm smart....it's literal facts, math, rankings, and statistics that aren't even remotely questioned by anyone, in any community, besides...well, you, here.

Based on this and other debates we've had, I'm beginning to think you're just trolling for the sake of trolling...because no matter how much of a mountain of literal facts are presented to you, you prefer to just go with your "feelings" and throw insults my way while spewing the most outlandish takes on the face of the planet.

I'm sure everyone is quaking at all of Stanford's Squash and Pickleball national championships. They're literally king of the petty sports. They win the director's cup because they play the most sports which college don't even field teams for. They do have tons of money to field good teams in every sport known to man. Good for them. No one cares.

I've also never heard anyone say they wanted to catch a Stanford Cardinal football game. I can say the opposite for nearly every college team in the nation.

"I am wrong". learn to accept this and your life will be easier. you literally move the goalposts for every dumb take you have. the fact is Stanford is not in a good conference, which means you're wrong. If they were such a TV draw, they'd be in the SEC or somewhere by now. No one cares about the Cardinals.

 

[MrTitleist]

A further look into the Stanford/Cal conference dilemma. Pretty good info in here.
https://www.si.com/college/2023/08/06/potential-power-five-exclusion-stanford-cal-team-usa-olympics

 

[wwplayer]

A further look into the Stanford/Cal conference dilemma. Pretty good info in here.
https://www.si.com/college/2023/08/06/potential-power-five-exclusion-stanford-cal-team-usa-olympics

Thank you for posting this link. Very interesting perspective on this situation. While I readily admit that I really only pay attention to football and basketball (and really only Wyo, at that), there are LOTS of people who follow other sports, especially Olympic sports. This article puts a real spotlight on another aspect of this whole mess. I doubt very much that we'll ever be in a conference with Stanford and Cal. We (as well as the rest of the MWC) just don't have that much to offer them.