Sheep are PAC12 Targets

[LawPoke]

Saw a report that SDSU and SMU are confirmed targets and all but guaranteed invites...but CSU was listed as the next PAC12 target, together with a mishmash of other teams from the MoWest, CUSA, Sun Belt, etc. Wyoming...of course...was no where in the mix. Get ready to get left behind.

 

[Wyokie]

Saw a report that SDSU and SMU are confirmed targets and all but guaranteed invites...but CSU was listed as the next PAC12 target, together with a mishmash of other teams from the MoWest, CUSA, Sun Belt, etc. Wyoming...of course...was no where in the mix. Get ready to get left behind.

Not unless 4 PAC-12 schools hitail it for the Big XII first.

 

[LawPoke]

True. That was the assumption - that if Utah, CU, Arizona and ASU go to the Big 12, the PAC would maybe go after the Sheep. Also assumes that Washington, Stanford and some others go to the BIG.

 

[Wyokie]

True. That was the assumption - that if Utah, CU, Arizona and ASU go to the Big 12, the PAC would maybe go after the Sheep. Also assumes that Washington, Stanford and some others go to the BIG.

It's either going to be the MW with Oregon State and Washington State joining with the MW keeping it's name, history, etc. OR it'll be a merger where it'll be the MW becoming the PAC-XX with a current MW lineup with Oregon State and Wazzu. Same lineups, just different names.

Hope I did that without confusing anyone. LOL

 

[flyfishwyo]

Saw a report that SDSU and SMU are confirmed targets and all but guaranteed invites...but CSU was listed as the next PAC12 target, together with a mishmash of other teams from the MoWest, CUSA, Sun Belt, etc. Wyoming...of course...was no where in the mix. Get ready to get left behind.

I saw an article yesterday that said CSU was a target along with Tulane or Rice. It wasn't from what I'd consider a reputable source. I couldn't even find it again. Sounded more like spectulation.

From what I've seen I don't think CU would be open to adding CSU to the PAC because they don't want to share the "Power 5" recruiting edge they have now. So, for the PAC to seriously consider CSU, CU would have to be headed to the Big 12. I also don't think the Big 12 will consider CU (and Utah) without the Arizona schools in a package deal. CU and Utah's athletic budget and market don't justify the Big 12 sharing a part of the pot with them. They would need ASU and Arizona to make it worth splitting current revenue. For reference, ASU and Arizona both have atletic revenues of over $100M, Utah is about $50M, and CSU and CU are around $48M. Wyoming is about $43M and the FBS median is about $51M.

The only way I see CSU going to the PAC is if CU leaves. At that point the PAC would be dead or dying anyway, so they may not go.

 

[Itsux2beaewe]

Saw a report that SDSU and SMU are confirmed targets and all but guaranteed invites...but CSU was listed as the next PAC12 target, together with a mishmash of other teams from the MoWest, CUSA, Sun Belt, etc. Wyoming...of course...was no where in the mix. Get ready to get left behind.

I saw an article yesterday that said CSU was a target along with Tulane or Rice. It wasn't from what I'd consider a reputable source. I couldn't even find it again. Sounded more like spectulation.

From what I've seen I don't think CU would be open to adding CSU to the PAC because they don't want to share the "Power 5" recruiting edge they have now. So, for the PAC to seriously consider CSU, CU would have to be headed to the Big 12. I also don't think the Big 12 will consider CU (and Utah) without the Arizona schools in a package deal. CU and Utah's athletic budget and market don't justify the Big 12 sharing a part of the pot with them. They would need ASU and Arizona to make it worth splitting current revenue. For reference, ASU and Arizona both have atletic revenues of over $100M, Utah is about $50M, and CSU and CU are around $48M. Wyoming is about $43M and the FBS median is about $51M.

The only way I see CSU going to the PAC is if CU leaves. At that point the PAC would be dead or dying anyway, so they may not go.

This makes sense. Prime has the spotlight on the Front Range at CU. Goat U doesn’t garner the same interest. Not even close. They don’t have success in football or men’s basketball. It’s more the ewes dream than anything valid, today. That could change if/when CU doesn’t remain in the PAC which could happen under Deion, but I see him poached to a SEC school if he has success at CU, which I think will happen in a couple of years. He’ll be a HC in the SEC within a few years.

 

[PokesArePeopleToo]

The independent Wyoming Cowboys. Coming to a stadium near you soon.

 

[OrediggerPoke]

MWC 2027:

Wyo
USU
New Mexico
SJSU
Fresno
Nevada
New Mexico State
Utah Tech
North Dakota State
South Dakota State

I still stick to this or something similar.

 

[LawPoke]

MWC 2027:

Wyo
USU
New Mexico
SJSU
Fresno
Nevada
New Mexico State
Utah Tech
North Dakota State
South Dakota State

I still stick to this or something similar.

I think this is painfully close to reality. Instead of Utah Tech, I would say Montana and Montana State. But we will be effectively relegated to whatever tier is lower than G5.

 

[Bryoming]

Here's the thing about conference realignment reports: they're all just for clicks. All these reporters are smelling their own farts and trying to be the first to report something, so they don't vet their sources and make damn sure they're correct. Take any of these with a GIANT grain of salt.

 

[laxwyo]

Here's the thing about conference realignment reports: they're all just for clicks. All these reporters are smelling their own farts and trying to be the first to report something, so they don't vet their sources and make damn sure they're correct. Take any of these with a GIANT grain of salt.

I think this would qualify as fart sniffing

https://twitter.com/hornymcfrog/status/1632801221680455681?s=46&t=GdGLWm-xBDuhMn8GGONWgg

 

[LanderPoke]

Saw a report that SDSU and SMU are confirmed targets and all but guaranteed invites...but CSU was listed as the next PAC12 target, together with a mishmash of other teams from the MoWest, CUSA, Sun Belt, etc. Wyoming...of course...was no where in the mix. Get ready to get left behind.

LOL. no

 

[OrediggerPoke]

Saw a report that SDSU and SMU are confirmed targets and all but guaranteed invites...but CSU was listed as the next PAC12 target, together with a mishmash of other teams from the MoWest, CUSA, Sun Belt, etc. Wyoming...of course...was no where in the mix. Get ready to get left behind.

LOL. no

You're burying your head in the sand if you don't believe that CSU is part of conversations. AAC offered them and other conferences that might need to backfill (i.e. PAC) will look at the them as well. Fort Collins is a growing community near Denver, they have a nice football stadium and they have unlocked athletic potential.

If Utah gets left behind in the PAC, I could very well see Utah advocate for CSU and Air Force.

 

[LawPoke]

LOL. no

You're burying your head in the sand if you don't believe that CSU is part of conversations. AAC offered them and other conferences that might need to backfill (i.e. PAC) will look at the them as well. Fort Collins is a growing community near Denver, they have a nice football stadium and they have unlocked athletic potential.

If Utah gets left behind in the PAC, I could very well see Utah advocate for CSU and Air Force.

CSU will drop us like a bad habit if they are offered a chance to be a PAC12 team. They plan. We chide and diminish. Time will tell, but I do know that Wyoming is doing precious little to position itself to be a part of any move that may happen down the road.

 

[flyfishwyo]

LOL. no

You're burying your head in the sand if you don't believe that CSU is part of conversations. AAC offered them and other conferences that might need to backfill (i.e. PAC) will look at the them as well. Fort Collins is a growing community near Denver, they have a nice football stadium and they have unlocked athletic potential.

If Utah gets left behind in the PAC, I could very well see Utah advocate for CSU and Air Force.

If Utah gets left behind, the PAC will be a dying conference without much pull. At that point it would have Utah, Oregon St, Washington St, and maybe SDSU and/or SMU as members. They would have a couple of years of tailing NCAA payments left, and probably the same or slightly higher TV revenue prospects as the MWC. The only difference between those teams' budgets and UW's is the TV money they got from the PAC. When that's gone, they're middle of the pack MWC schools.

 

[flyfishwyo]

You're burying your head in the sand if you don't believe that CSU is part of conversations. AAC offered them and other conferences that might need to backfill (i.e. PAC) will look at the them as well. Fort Collins is a growing community near Denver, they have a nice football stadium and they have unlocked athletic potential.

If Utah gets left behind in the PAC, I could very well see Utah advocate for CSU and Air Force.

CSU will drop us like a bad habit if they are offered a chance to be a PAC12 team. They plan. We chide and diminish. Time will tell, but I do know that Wyoming is doing precious little to position itself to be a part of any move that may happen down the road.

I'm sure CSU would drop us if they had a better opportunity. But don't give them too much credit. They aren't planning or doing anything spectacular to make themselves more attractive. The new stadium is cool, but it about broke them. The new football coaching hires were splashy, but didn't result in more wins. Hell, it cost them a ton to pay coaches not to coach.

At the same time Wyoming has great facilities and a stable football program. We could perform better on the field. That would really help right now. We do spend the money it takes to be an upper tier MWC school. There isn't really much we can do to position ourselves better. The market is what it is. CSU spends $5M a year more and I bet most of that is wasted on interest for the stadium and paying off fired coaches.

 

[307bball]

CSU will drop us like a bad habit if they are offered a chance to be a PAC12 team. They plan. We chide and diminish. Time will tell, but I do know that Wyoming is doing precious little to position itself to be a part of any move that may happen down the road.

I'm sure CSU would drop us if they had a better opportunity. But don't give them too much credit. They aren't planning or doing anything spectacular to make themselves more attractive. The new stadium is cool, but it about broke them. The new football coaching hires were splashy, but didn't result in more wins. Hell, it cost them a ton to pay coaches not to coach.

At the same time Wyoming has great facilities and a stable football program. We could perform better on the field. That would really help right now. We do spend the money it takes to be an upper tier MWC school. There isn't really much we can do to position ourselves better. The market is what it is. CSU spends $5M a year more and I bet most of that is wasted on interest for the stadium and paying off fired coaches.

Agreed...

Lots of opinions that assert Wyoming is doing "precious little", but nobody has a clue on what they are supposed to do....just lots of vague platitudes about being "forward looking" and having "strong leadership". The fact that CSU is even in any of these conversations speaks to the intractable situation UW athletics finds itself in. Wyoming has actually slightly outperformed CSU in recent history in Football and Men's bball and yet they are still in the conference roulette conversation (barely) and we are not. Why?....It comes down to market and market potential. They have some....we have less. Could we grow it? Of course...there is always room to improve and grow but at the end of the day...the numbers are not great for Wyoming.

Look at the Boise St. situation as an example. Who has had more athletic success and recognition than them during the last 20-ish years? almost nobody and yet they still have not found a way to get an invitation to a P5 conference. They don't fit the profile of what the big money conferences want. Neither do we. Does CSU?...evidently at least slightly better than Wyoming. There are things holding Wyoming back that are out of the leaderships control. This whole thing is a slow moving train wreck if you care about college athletics in Wyoming. Everybody points out the great facilities that have been erected in the last 10 or so years ... but they are only great in comparison to what used to be there before. In comparison to the upper half of the non-P5 programs...they don't really stand out. Nice? yes...but if the goal for that expenditure was to ensure that we got into the upper echelon of college athletics....the spend was too small by at least half.

Even talking about this opens me up to those who will just call me a nay-sayer and ridicule my "do less with less" attitude. How do you realistically talk and think about this stuff and follow Wyoming athletics as I have for the past 35 years and not have a jaded eye? I'm all for doing better with the resources at hand but the resources at hand are not enough...we need more resources to get Wyoming athletics to the place I want them to be.

 

[flyfishwyo]

I'm sure CSU would drop us if they had a better opportunity. But don't give them too much credit. They aren't planning or doing anything spectacular to make themselves more attractive. The new stadium is cool, but it about broke them. The new football coaching hires were splashy, but didn't result in more wins. Hell, it cost them a ton to pay coaches not to coach.

At the same time Wyoming has great facilities and a stable football program. We could perform better on the field. That would really help right now. We do spend the money it takes to be an upper tier MWC school. There isn't really much we can do to position ourselves better. The market is what it is. CSU spends $5M a year more and I bet most of that is wasted on interest for the stadium and paying off fired coaches.

Agreed...

Lots of opinions that assert Wyoming is doing "precious little", but nobody has a clue on what they are supposed to do....just lots of vague platitudes about being "forward looking" and having "strong leadership". The fact that CSU is even in any of these conversations speaks to the intractable situation UW athletics finds itself in. Wyoming has actually slightly outperformed CSU in recent history in Football and Men's bball and yet they are still in the conference roulette conversation (barely) and we are not. Why?....It comes down to market and market potential. They have some....we have less. Could we grow it? Of course...there is always room to improve and grow but at the end of the day...the numbers are not great for Wyoming.

Look at the Boise St. situation as an example. Who has had more athletic success and recognition than them during the last 20-ish years? almost nobody and yet they still have not found a way to get an invitation to a P5 conference. They don't fit the profile of what the big money conferences want. Neither do we. Does CSU?...evidently at least slightly better than Wyoming. There are things holding Wyoming back that are out of the leaderships control. This whole thing is a slow moving train wreck if you care about college athletics in Wyoming. Everybody points out the great facilities that have been erected in the last 10 or so years ... but they are only great in comparison to what used to be there before. In comparison to the upper half of the non-P5 programs...they don't really stand out. Nice? yes...but if the goal for that expenditure was to ensure that we got into the upper echelon of college athletics....the spend was too small by at least half.

Even talking about this opens me up to those who will just call me a nay-sayer and ridicule my "do less with less" attitude. How do you realistically talk and think about this stuff and follow Wyoming athletics as I have for the past 35 years and not have a jaded eye? I'm all for doing better with the resources at hand but the resources at hand are not enough...we need more resources to get Wyoming athletics to the place I want them to be.

I agree with everything except the facilities piece. A friend with intimate knowledge of UW's facilities interviewed with a top SEC school about a year ago and his assessment is that our athletic facilities are as high or higher quality, but somewhat smaller. That makes sense given the number of sports we play and the number of fans who come to watch.

 

[307bball]

Agreed...

Lots of opinions that assert Wyoming is doing "precious little", but nobody has a clue on what they are supposed to do....just lots of vague platitudes about being "forward looking" and having "strong leadership". The fact that CSU is even in any of these conversations speaks to the intractable situation UW athletics finds itself in. Wyoming has actually slightly outperformed CSU in recent history in Football and Men's bball and yet they are still in the conference roulette conversation (barely) and we are not. Why?....It comes down to market and market potential. They have some....we have less. Could we grow it? Of course...there is always room to improve and grow but at the end of the day...the numbers are not great for Wyoming.

Look at the Boise St. situation as an example. Who has had more athletic success and recognition than them during the last 20-ish years? almost nobody and yet they still have not found a way to get an invitation to a P5 conference. They don't fit the profile of what the big money conferences want. Neither do we. Does CSU?...evidently at least slightly better than Wyoming. There are things holding Wyoming back that are out of the leaderships control. This whole thing is a slow moving train wreck if you care about college athletics in Wyoming. Everybody points out the great facilities that have been erected in the last 10 or so years ... but they are only great in comparison to what used to be there before. In comparison to the upper half of the non-P5 programs...they don't really stand out. Nice? yes...but if the goal for that expenditure was to ensure that we got into the upper echelon of college athletics....the spend was too small by at least half.

Even talking about this opens me up to those who will just call me a nay-sayer and ridicule my "do less with less" attitude. How do you realistically talk and think about this stuff and follow Wyoming athletics as I have for the past 35 years and not have a jaded eye? I'm all for doing better with the resources at hand but the resources at hand are not enough...we need more resources to get Wyoming athletics to the place I want them to be.

I agree with everything except the facilities piece. A friend with intimate knowledge of UW's facilities interviewed with a top SEC school about a year ago and his assessment is that our athletic facilities are as high or higher quality, but somewhat smaller. That makes sense given the number of sports we play and the number of fans who come to watch.

Wow....that is high praise coming from SEC country. I probably downgrade the affect that having nice facilities can have on recruiting and attractiveness of the program. I think, if anything, we have found out that while our aging facilities may have not been helping us in the past...they were never the sole reason we have struggled. Just upgrading facilities and "keeping up with the jones's" does not automatically set you up to win championships. Even if they did, as evidenced by Boise States success and continued existence outside of P5, it probably doesn't get you an upgrade in conference anyways.

 

[PokesArePeopleToo]

Good points by many. But just imagine the extra dollars that would be available that could be sent to the football team if we didn't have to fund a few sports nobody cares about? Eliminate golf, swimming, women's soccer, volleyball, cross country. That's a lot of extra dough available if those programs didn't exist.