They absolutely would. This whole episode is laying bare the naked money grab that is college athletics. There are no cherished traditions, no historic rivalries, no high minded claims amateur student athletics that won't be sacrificed to raw dollars in the end. No program, athletic director, or conference can swim against that current. Whatever price you have to pay to become AQ (or whatever the future version of AQ) is going to be paid including back stabbing conference mates... And every program will do it.
-
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!
This rumor REALLY concerns me
- Thread starter Wyokie
- Start date
ragtimejoe1
Well-known member
suds and csu are the new byu but less relevant.
OrediggerPoke
Well-known member
MWC releases a vague statement today ‘on its commitment to unity.’ I really don’t understand the purpose of such a statement. The PAC12 released a similar statement following the USC and UCLA departures…
OrediggerPoke
Well-known member
https://twitter.com/pac12/status/1542663543220080640?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1542663543220080640%7Ctwgr%5E88475011c61690cf5ee3212a0b1d7c41779899d8%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.si.com%2Fcollege%2F2022%2F07%2F01%2Fpac-12-statement-usc-ucla-departure
ragtimejoe1
Well-known member
Now I'm really worried, lol.
LanderPoke
Well-known member
ragtimejoe1 said:
But the thing is CSU literally sucks. BYU, those bastards, enjoyed some pretty good success. CSU is all bravado and no success. All hat no cattle. The sheep are arrogant jokers whom we own in football.
LanderPoke
Well-known member
OrediggerPoke said:
Seems we're out of the woods for now. Thus a statement
Poke in New England
Well-known member
ragtimejoe1 said:
SUDS and their fans have made Boize fans look humble by comparison. Not an easy thing to do.
OrediggerPoke
Well-known member
LanderPoke said:
Why do you need to release a statement that the conference is fine? This is like calling work to tell them you plan to go to work. The only reason to release such a statement if there is concern coming from somewhere.
Somebody talk me off the ledge here...Give me a reason the following is not realistic.
Right now there is a real or imaginary line that divides the MWC into "attractive" and "non-attractive schools" in the conference realignment chaos...from what I'm hearing it breaks down as follows:
Attractive:
Fresno
UNLV
CSU
SDSU
BSU
AFA
Non-attractive:
Wyo
Hawaii
USU
SJSU
UNM
NEV
Is it correct to say that the split of teams plus the buyout plus the 75% vote requirement to nullify the buyout or dissolve and reform is what is keeping the MWC together at the moment since no three "non-attractive" schools are willing to go along with the plan to dissolve and re-form?
If the above is correct...the addition of Oregon St and Washington St would change the numbers a bit. At that point you have 14 schools and you would need 11 schools to exceed a 75% vote threshold. The same three school that would not agree to dissolve before the addition could still stop a motion to dissolve after the addition...but what if SMU and Cal joins? Now you would need five schools to vote against dissolution. Could two of the "non-attractive" six secure some sort of agreement that they would be included in whatever gets re-formed and join the march to kill the MW thus relegating Wyo to whatever is left? It would look something like the following:
12 Votes to dissolve 16 team MWC:
Cal
SMU
OR St
WA St
Fresno
UNLV
CSU
SDSU
BSU
AFA
??
??
Who would fill in those question marks or is all this just "sky is falling" type thinking?
Right now there is a real or imaginary line that divides the MWC into "attractive" and "non-attractive schools" in the conference realignment chaos...from what I'm hearing it breaks down as follows:
Attractive:
Fresno
UNLV
CSU
SDSU
BSU
AFA
Non-attractive:
Wyo
Hawaii
USU
SJSU
UNM
NEV
Is it correct to say that the split of teams plus the buyout plus the 75% vote requirement to nullify the buyout or dissolve and reform is what is keeping the MWC together at the moment since no three "non-attractive" schools are willing to go along with the plan to dissolve and re-form?
If the above is correct...the addition of Oregon St and Washington St would change the numbers a bit. At that point you have 14 schools and you would need 11 schools to exceed a 75% vote threshold. The same three school that would not agree to dissolve before the addition could still stop a motion to dissolve after the addition...but what if SMU and Cal joins? Now you would need five schools to vote against dissolution. Could two of the "non-attractive" six secure some sort of agreement that they would be included in whatever gets re-formed and join the march to kill the MW thus relegating Wyo to whatever is left? It would look something like the following:
12 Votes to dissolve 16 team MWC:
Cal
SMU
OR St
WA St
Fresno
UNLV
CSU
SDSU
BSU
AFA
??
??
Who would fill in those question marks or is all this just "sky is falling" type thinking?
LanderPoke
Well-known member
I've thought about this and I share your concern. I am against adding anyone. Whoever we add that will "add value" to our conference will hate it and always be looking for something better, dilute our power and influence and puts our future in jeopardy.307bball said:
ragtimejoe1
Well-known member
The next playoff contract will be for power 5 teams only. G5 will be in our own division. Once that happens, the money dries up and the chase stops.
For g5 teams, none of this will matter.
For g5 teams, none of this will matter.
LanderPoke
Well-known member
Fine by me, I suppose. The last 15-20 years have not been super fun compared to before that. I'm up for something newragtimejoe1 said:
sandiegopoke
Well-known member
In 2015, Wyoming was rated by the Wall Street Journal as the 3rd highest value brand, but we know it's all about TV screens, and Wyo does draw well nationally, but the actual TV markets in Wyoming will be our downfall.
ragtimejoe1
Well-known member
LanderPoke said:
Yeah, it might actually be better. Really, the only teams that need to be concerned are those that are on the bubble of p5, like Stanford. Even if crap hits the fan, g5 will be restructured within 3-5 years. We'll be fine no matter; it just might suck for a few years.
It needs to happen sooner rather than later. We all know the p5 will split. It'd be best if it was announced now for 24 or 25. That would at least stabilize g5.
LanderPoke
Well-known member
Wonder what will happen to the Rose Bowl
