• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your WyoNation.com experience today!

P12 - MWC

307bball said:
Yep...if you keep moving the line down...you get from BSU to SDSU to ... to.... to....to... to..USU! I have heard so much bashing on USU in these forums .... calling them every terrible thing that can be dreamt up....so color me surprised to read your "glowing" description of their program.

I also see your not interested in answering the CSU question in good faith ... I can only assume that is because you believe, deep down, that if Wyoming and CSU swapped competitive results, Wyoming is still not getting invited. Burman has seen a lot of the metrics get better under his tenure except for the one that mattered....wins. Now...you may be changing your tune and talking about how the AD was not invested in properly...poor Burman..if only he had the proper commitment. I call BS on that. He didn't have to hang on to bad coaches so long and some of his hires were perplexing even before he hung on to them too long.

I'm not confused as to why Wyoming did not get invited....we are a train wreck of the first order. If I'm sitting in an office at BSU or Oregon State I want nothing to do with Wyoming.
Click to expand...
The csu question is answered. Their results and our investment? I'm thinking UNM creeps up. Their entire athletic department portfolio which includes budget, then we get in.

The difference between our football and their football is relatively miniscule. Marketing depend on championships and t25 status which drives national interest. When you look at csu and WYO, sure, we're better but we still don't elevate to the successful level required to generate national interest. Does usu have a national following? Obvious no. However, in their ranked years, I'm sure there were games that sparked national interest. They've shown their program can do that. Us? Not since the 90s.

Like I said, when you're a bottom 3 or 4 athletic department in the MWC, it's really hard to try to start pointing fingers at a bunch of other crap when reality is we just stink. You can speculate all you want but reality is first grounded with we stink. I tend to stick with reality. The decision process likely never moved past "WYO is a bottom 3 or 4 athletic departments in terms of measurable success and investment". They stopped there and most people outside of WYO do to.
 
307bball said:
I too would have swapped Unlv for CSU. By the sounds of it they wanted both....and from your analysis, it seems like that would have been really bad for the MWC right? The reasons for inclusion for either would not have a ton to do with how good they are....neither have been much recently.
Click to expand...
If the MWC had lost one more member (especially UNLV) they would have been in a bad way probably having to pursue the likes of a NMSU as Texas State wasn’t interested in joining the MWC as is. I don’t blame TSU for passing up $2 million in the Sun Belt for a partial share in a neutered MWC.

Who knows if AFA would have tried going AAC with Army and Navy if UNLV left because the MWC would have become very bottom Sun Belt, MAC and CUSA like.

The #1 thing the MWC has going for it right now is the potential GOR $$$ for the remaining members.
 
PorkerPoke said:
If the MWC had lost one more member (especially UNLV) they would have been in a bad way probably having to pursue the likes of a NMSU as Texas State wasn’t interested in joining the MWC as is. I don’t blame TSU for passing up $2 million in the Sun Belt for a partial share in a neutered MWC.

Who knows if AFA would have tried going AAC with Army and Navy if UNLV left because the MWC would have become very bottom Sun Belt, MAC and CUSA like.

The #1 thing the MWC has going for it right now is the potential GOR $$$ for the remaining members.
Click to expand...
I'm confused as to if AFA and UNLV are getting 24.5% of the exit fees AND poaching fees or just 24.5% of the exist fees. Or is this still be decided also?
 
ragtimejoe1 said:
The csu question is answered. Their results and our investment? I'm thinking UNM creeps up. Their entire athletic department portfolio which includes budget, then we get in.

The difference between our football and their football is relatively miniscule. Marketing depend on championships and t25 status which drives national interest. When you look at csu and WYO, sure, we're better but we still don't elevate to the successful level required to generate national interest. Does usu have a national following? Obvious no. However, in their ranked years, I'm sure there were games that sparked national interest. They've shown their program can do that. Us? Not since the 90s.

Like I said, when you're a bottom 3 or 4 athletic department in the MWC, it's really hard to try to start pointing fingers at a bunch of other crap when reality is we just stink. You can speculate all you want but reality is first grounded with we stink. I tend to stick with reality. The decision process likely never moved past "WYO is a bottom 3 or 4 athletic departments in terms of measurable success and investment". They stopped there and most people outside of WYO do to.
Click to expand...
Spot on. Also, I never claimed that they should have taken Wyoming...it's completely understandable why they didn't. I even think I understand why USU and CSU were taken. It's not because they have dominated everybody that is for sure. Both have a lot of factors in their favor when it comes to being able to invest in a football program and and athletic program in general that compares favorably with the rest of the "left-behinds". And, as you point out, USU has a glimmer or two of competitive results so it's not like that just does not matter.

This particular conference split between the Pac and the MWC has been tough to digest for this Pokes fan. I am not comforted at all by the "we'll all be in the same boat when the P2 split happens" talk. We've become an afterthought. I don't see that changing.
 
307bball said:
This particular conference split between the Pac and the MWC has been tough to digest for this Pokes fan. I am not comforted at all by the "we'll all be in the same boat when the P2 split happens" talk. We've become an afterthought. I don't see that changing.
Click to expand...
That's a bit TBD depending on playoff and ncaa tourney access. If all stays the same, they'll clearly have an advantage in rpi/net for more at-large tourney bids. It will also be difficult for an undefeated MWC to jump an undefeated pac depending on ooc. What about a 1 loss pac? We'll see. Also, how many at-large football playoff spots will there be?

If there is a major split and the P4 do their own thing for athletics or even just bball/football, then who knows what the fallout will be? It is very likely that all the money in the g6 dries up and we are merely fcs+. Will hierarchy of conferences below the P4 even matter? There's just no way to know.

We will be just fine in the new MWC. I hope beyond hope we can get some accountability and winning standards. What level the new MWC is? Anyone telling you they know is lying.
 
ragtimejoe1 said:
That's a bit TBD depending on playoff and ncaa tourney access. If all stays the same, they'll clearly have an advantage in rpi/net for more at-large tourney bids. It will also be difficult for an undefeated MWC to jump an undefeated pac depending on ooc. What about a 1 loss pac? We'll see. Also, how many at-large football playoff spots will there be?

If there is a major split and the P4 do their own thing for athletics or even just bball/football, then who knows what the fallout will be? It is very likely that all the money in the g6 dries up and we are merely fcs+. Will hierarchy of conferences below the P4 even matter? There's just no way to know.

We will be just fine in the new MWC. I hope beyond hope we can get some accountability and winning standards. What level the new MWC is? Anyone telling you they know is lying.
Click to expand...
Since we face an uncertain future where the best get asked before the rest our only choice is to commit to winning and show the state of Wyoming can support semi-pro sports. It’s the only college entertainment in a state without a pro team not at the JC level. If we don’t want to take that step then we better explore how to go to the FCS. The big difference is the FCS isn’t going to be paying Wyoming anything.

Not only do we have to throw some cash at the sports we want to excel in, but we have to take on the mindset that we want to win. In the new MWC we are going to be playing the teams we have been beating for the last 10 years. We have also provided wins to this group as well but without doing the stats I am going to guess we are in the 60% win rate as we usually tended to win against the sub .500 programs.

The winning needs to start happening in this last version of the MWC as we’ve known it and continue. A minimum of 7-8 wins per year and a couple of 10 win seasons with a nice OOC win against a power name. That will be the ticket to inclusion consideration. 6 or less wins with an occasional 7 wins will be a recipe for exclusion.

The 2025 finale of the MWC may be influential in future considerations. Now is the chance to demonstrate that Wyoming can play in the game. In 2023 Wyoming was 69th budget size nationally and 6th in the MWC. The year the pee12 splintered. Now we are in a fight for the leftover crumbs from the leftover table. It would be a treat to be the surprise team of 2025 and build momentum. I will leave it at that…
 
Thanks for all your input Porker. The rest of this 500+ post thread just seems to go in circles with no real insights but a lot of opinions and disagreement.
 
If reports are true that the defectors were blocking the GCU addition to happen this season, I wonder if that will impact mediation because it clearly demonstrates that they were working against the MWC's best interests?
 
ragtimejoe1 said:
If reports are true that the defectors were blocking the GCU addition to happen this season, I wonder if that will impact mediation because it clearly demonstrates that they were working against the MWC's best interests?
Click to expand...
With the stay expiring in exactly 1 week from today, I am hoping that the MWC is sticking a fork into the traitors every way possible and for as much as possible.

The “elite” traitors became immediately hostile last September when they all announced they were leaving by immediately filing the lawsuit. The ongoing condescending commentary deserves the MWC finger.

The fact that they claim the GCU addition hurts their bottom line tells me they are desperately counting their pennies.
 
ragtimejoe1 said:
If reports are true that the defectors were blocking the GCU addition to happen this season, I wonder if that will impact mediation because it clearly demonstrates that they were working against the MWC's best interests?
Click to expand...
I wonder if this is true? I could see Pac wanting GCU for basketball and, for whatever reason, Gonzaga and GCU being good additions for b-ball and becoming a inter-conference rivalry.

Sure would be nice to hear something from the MWC conference. But, it does seem that remaining quiet and avoiding media scrutiny is a good strategy. I've read a number of articles from different sources calling out the hypocrisy of the Pac on its current exit fees being punitive. Not sure how they win that argument? In any event, it does seem that MWC is being seen more as a victim and Pac as the aggressor.
 
Midwest Cowboy said:
I wonder if this is true? I could see Pac wanting GCU for basketball and, for whatever reason, Gonzaga and GCU being good additions for b-ball and becoming a inter-conference rivalry.

Sure would be nice to hear something from the MWC conference. But, it does seem that remaining quiet and avoiding media scrutiny is a good strategy. I've read a number of articles from different sources calling out the hypocrisy of the Pac on its current exit fees being punitive. Not sure how they win that argument? In any event, it does seem that MWC is being seen more as a victim and Pac as the aggressor.
Click to expand...
What I think is interesting is that prior to this announcement, Murray speculated that the pac may be likely to invite GCU to compliment a football only invite and that GCU may never play in the MWC. He acknowledged that he didn't know the contractual language with the MWC so was definitely speculation on the assumption they wouldn't have a large buyout or other contract stipulation preventing them from accepting a pac invite.

I didn't give that much thought, but after the announcement that GCU starts this year and the defectors were trying to block it, I'm starting to wonder if Murray was onto something?
 
Sports Illustrated:

Boise State said the move “significantly and negatively impacts the schedules, opportunities, and budgets of Boise State and the other departing universities” in a statement released to Bronco Nation News. “We will address this matter and the harm to the departing universities in litigation,” the statement also said.

This is related to moving GCU to the MWC a year early. BSU and SDSU are claiming they are still part of the MWC and should have retained voting rights. Clearly, there are games being played. SI surmises that mediation is not going well and this was a strategic move by MWC to get Pac back to the table. SI seems to be suggesting that its on its way to full blown litigation.

This does seem to be an aggressive move (maybe out of necessity?) but I am glad it was done. I do hope MWC and Gloria Nevarez are taking a really strong stand against the hypocrites from the Pac.
 
Midwest Cowboy said:
Sports Illustrated:

Boise State said the move “significantly and negatively impacts the schedules, opportunities, and budgets of Boise State and the other departing universities” in a statement released to Bronco Nation News. “We will address this matter and the harm to the departing universities in litigation,” the statement also said.

This is related to moving GCU to the MWC a year early. BSU and SDSU are claiming they are still part of the MWC and should have retained voting rights. Clearly, there are games being played. SI surmises that mediation is not going well and this was a strategic move by MWC to get Pac back to the table. SI seems to be suggesting that its on its way to full blown litigation.

This does seem to be an aggressive move (maybe out of necessity?) but I am glad it was done. I do hope MWC and Gloria Nevarez are taking a really strong stand against the hypocrites from the Pac.
Click to expand...
Midwest - there will be something by 7-15 when the current stay expires. The judge has nothing listed on the calendar for this case upcoming. The judge does have case management conferences on Tuesday’s at 9:30 am. Every thing the pee12 group is doing is designed to avoid paying as much as possible because this is an expensive venture and the increase in media revenue for the next 5 years won’t exactly leave them swimming in extra cash.
 
I don't even remember what the stay was related to anymore. I am not a litigation attorney but its possible that the stay expires and every thing moves to litigation. I can understand the judge appreciating the public nature of this and keeping things off the calendar. Not sure what would be next...maybe conferring to discuss a schedule? Honestly, I don't know but I think the announcement we hear (if anything) is that the parties could not resolve differences and are moving forward with litigation. Of course, that only means mediation failed. It doesn't mean a settlement will not occur at a later date. Anyway, I do think time is favorable to the MWC (but not perfectly). I can see a year or two from now as conferences become more set and everybody accustomed to things, a reluctance to "upset the apple cart." So, on the front end, time hurts the Pac. On the back end, time hurts MWC.

I will just be happy if we can all reasonably assume that the Pac is, and will for ever be, financially unstable. And I hope they fight like cats and dogs among themselves. A pox upon all of their houses!
 
I also am leery of media and twists to the story. The BSU buttsniffs along with sdsu claiming it was unfair only have a courtesy voice in the MWC any longer. As long as the MWC has control over the conference schedules, the traitors have to participate just like any other member. Once they resigned they gave up their voting voice. But, they are trying their hardest to avoid accepting responsibility for their actions.

Don’t forget that the 2nd lawsuit was filed in Colorado District Court Denver County. I can’t find anything other than the filing. If the traitors want to litigate based on the GCU addition it may very well hurt that part of the mediation (if incomplete) but the main part that has to be addressed by tomorrow with either a resolution, another stay request or a confirmation of pursuing litigation is the pee12 poaching lawsuit.

Unless the traitors are convinced they are on to something in their favor, they all signed onto a new GOR that penalizes them even harsher with exit fees. The bundling of the mediation may not be continued since it was not a Northern California court filing. I have no legal insight on this part. Maybe the poaching fees get resolved and the exit fees continue as it’s own issue despite the pee12 GOR specifically stating it will help X amount of the traitors $18 million exit fee costs.

It will be interesting to see what comes out on 7-15.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top