Question about Frog fans perspective

[61_Shasta]

With things looking likeUtah to the PAC-12 and the addition of BSU to the MWC what do you see as TCU's future? Big-X? Would TCU be content to stay in the MWC with BSU and BYU? At this point it's hard not to look at TCU as the king of the conference with BSU a close second, BYU and AFA battling for third then a major drop off in talent.

Responses appreciated. Where is the ideal spot for TCU?

 

[macaroni]

We'll stay if you stay...

 

[Delmonico]

I see a 10 team future with Utah in the MWC.

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

QUOTE(61_Shasta @ Jun 15 2010, 08:30 PM) [snapback]580134[/snapback]
With things looking likeUtah to the PAC-12 and the addition of BSU to the MWC what do you see as TCU's future? Big-X? Would TCU be content to stay in the MWC with BSU and BYU? At this point it's hard not to look at TCU as the king of the conference with BSU a close second, BYU and AFA battling for third then a major drop off in talent.

Responses appreciated. Where is the ideal spot for TCU?


Independent.......

 

[general125]

TCU isn't king of the conference already?

 

[Frog_Fan71]

Indifference.

 

[dweller]

The problem with the big 1? is how long will it last, I don't believe more than a couple years tops. I think if the current MWC schools stay, the MWC get an AQ bid, and is beter shape when the next round of re-alignment happens, and it will happen. The big least is on borrowed time, evemmtualy they will be raided by the Big 10(12) and the ACC. There is too much animosity in the Big1? to survive. What do you think happens when some confrence approaches on of the have nots (lesser share income) about an equal payout in a different coonferrence? They will bolt faster than you can show a down turned horn sign.

 

[roddog]

QUOTE(61_Shasta @ Jun 15 2010, 08:30 PM) [snapback]580134[/snapback]
With things looking likeUtah to the PAC-12 and the addition of BSU to the MWC what do you see as TCU's future?


http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...XeAtvwD9GBSSB80

 

[windfarm]

I don't see any clear solution right now other than holding on to our spot in the MWC. If Utah leaves, then that sucks, but worse things could happen.

We're not really desirable to Pac 10 or Big 10, so it remains to be seen whether the Big III+Lesser VII is a long term fix for the Big 12, or if another shuffle happens in the next 5 years that either includes us or provides more solid teams to the MWC.

 

[Frog DJ]

QUOTE(dweller @ Jun 15 2010, 03:37 PM) [snapback]580161[/snapback]
The problem with the big 1? is how long will it last, I don't believe more than a couple years tops. I think if the current MWC schools stay, the MWC get an AQ bid, and is beter shape when the next round of re-alignment happens, and it will happen. The big least is on borrowed time, evemmtualy they will be raided by the Big 10(12) and the ACC. There is too much animosity in the Big1? to survive. What do you think happens when some confrence approaches on of the have nots (lesser share income) about an equal payout in a different coonferrence? They will bolt faster than you can show a down turned horn sign.


Absolutely agree, dweller! The animosity this incident has placed between UT/OU/A&M and the rest of the conference should not be underestimated. It's foolish to think that won't come into play somewhere down the road.

Oh, and watch that down-turned Horn sign, dweller - Vince Young will kick your [Deleted] over that! :biggrin:

Go Frogs!

 

[Despite the odds Frog]

We are trying to better ourselves just like Utah would go to better themselves. I think TCU would honor staying with MWC if their was a certain way that conference was to earn BCS inclusion - that would most likely include Utah in the senario. I think MWC can be better than conferences such as the Pac-10 if all the members stick together and look to advance the conference together.

If Utah leaves then TCU needs to do what is best for TCU. TCU wants to win a national championship and doesn't want to be left behind when these other conferences decide to move to make mega conferences. If that means stay in the MWC or if that is to move forward in another conference.

 

[windfarm]

Losing Utah, replaced by BSU, we are still in a position where an undefeated MWC school is likely to make a BCS game. It's not a guarantee, but still we are not really worse off than we've been.

If we hold on to Utah, we are getting very close to AQ status. From Utah's standpoint, I wonder about the attractiveness of getting automatic AQ status in the Pac 12 versus earning AQ status for the MWC, where it might be more likely to make consistent BCS appearances.

 

[steelfrog]

QUOTE(Frog DJ @ Jun 15 2010, 08:42 PM) [snapback]580169[/snapback]
Absolutely agree, dweller! The animosity this incident has placed between UT/OU/A&M and the rest of the conference should not be underestimated. It's foolish to think that won't come into play somewhere down the road.

Oh, and watch that down-turned Horn sign, dweller - Vince Young will kick your [Deleted] over that! :biggrin:

Go Frogs!

Animosity Schnanimosity. This is business. Money talks and BS walks. Simple as that.

 

[jack the frog]

QUOTE(dweller @ Jun 15 2010, 03:37 PM) [snapback]580161[/snapback]
The problem with the big 1? is how long will it last, I don't believe more than a couple years tops. I think if the current MWC schools stay, the MWC get an AQ bid, and is beter shape when the next round of re-alignment happens, and it will happen. The big least is on borrowed time, evemmtualy they will be raided by the Big 10(12) and the ACC. There is too much animosity in the Big1? to survive. What do you think happens when some confrence approaches on of the have nots (lesser share income) about an equal payout in a different coonferrence? They will bolt faster than you can show a down turned horn sign.



I just hope for the strongest possible MWC when, in 1 to 3 years, this interim arrangment has served the Texas purpose and they move on to the mega conference, mega payout.
Would love to see Utah in the conference but that isn't looking too good right now.

 

[dweller]

QUOTE(steelfrog @ Jun 15 2010, 08:47 PM) [snapback]580180[/snapback]
Animosity Schnanimosity. This is business. Money talks and BS walks. Simple as that.

Exactly and Mizzu may yet get an invite to the Big 10(12) if they ever get ND or need to expand to 14 or 16.

Plus there is not yet a contract, just numbers on paper, this is not over yet.

 

[Genbukan]

Conference realignment isn't dead. It will be a few more years till the next round but the underlying impetus will remain - the HAVES believe they are entitled to a bigger and bigger piece of the pie and will take any chance they can to try and seperate themselves, shedding more and more teams each time.

Eventually, they'll be a playoff and the UT's of the world will come back down to earth. Until then, I believe the MWC is in a really good position to take advantage of each round of realignment.

The LAC (longhorn athletic conference) is on the clock. No way the other schools can be kept happy as Deloss's boi - they'll eventually grow a pair and pull a mizzou. Well, except for baylor who will be more than happy to lick the longhorn hoof. So eventually the MWC will get to 16 and it will look something like:

MWC - West Division

BYU
BSU
Wyo
SDSU
UNLV
Fresno
CSU
AFA

East Division

TCU
Kansas St.
Iowa St.
Texas Tech
Okie Light
Kansas
Houston
UNM

The divisions keep a regional feel so rivalries can develop, decent TV markets, very good basketball and a conference where all members contribute and compete on a equal basis. The TV contract still won't be what the "HAVES" can dictate but the playoff system allows the MWC to get rewarded through performance.

OF course I hope Utah is still around but since the Pac invite issued has been decided I have not included them.

 

[FrogBones]

If you want my opinion, then read the entire thread titled on why utah may stay in mwc.

I honestly believe that the PAC is not going to offer Utah because if you look at the current PAC 10 tv deal which reportedly is $59.7 million a year total, and then you factor in colorado and utah into that, each current pac 10 team will get around $1 million less than the $6 mil a year they are getting now.

Of course, people will say well then they have a championship game so its worth it. But is it? Even if the conference makes $12 million profit off a championship game even then it is only a wash.

After that you factor in new and more travel costs for non-revenue sports i.e. sports not named football and basketball and any women's sports(sorry ladies) then you are looking at an overall loss of revenue for each of the current pac 10 schools. And given the current state of college athletics and skyrocketing salaries, costs, and building costs if you want to upgrade in anything, then I don't really see the PAC 10 making a move that costs them money, even if it is only a small loss. I guarantee you colorado would not be in the PAC ten if the PAC thought that they never had a shot at Texas.

the only way to offset that is to negotiate a new TV deal, and nothing has been reported to suggest that will happen anytime soon. Again I am just a dude with a keyboard so I have no real basis, but this is my opinion and you asked for it.

So honestly I don't see the PAC taking Utah right now. And, I am not surprised the Utah AD said today they haven't even been contacted by the PAC 10, which of course he could be lying but I believe him because for some reason it seems to be really hard to keep a secret in the state of utah between utah and byu. But, what do I know, I'm just a doctor, and as we all know things can change at any point in time.

 

[Frog89]

QUOTE(FrogBones @ Jun 15 2010, 04:04 PM) [snapback]580212[/snapback]
If you want my opinion, then read the entire thread titled on why utah may stay in mwc.

I honestly believe that the PAC is not going to offer Utah because if you look at the current PAC 10 tv deal which reportedly is $59.7 million a year total, and then you factor in colorado and utah into that, each current pac 10 team will get around $1 million less than the $6 mil a year they are getting now.

Of course, people will say well then they have a championship game so its worth it. But is it? Even if the conference makes $12 million profit off a championship game even then it is only a wash.

After that you factor in new and more travel costs for non-revenue sports i.e. sports not named football and basketball and any women's sports(sorry ladies) then you are looking at an overall loss of revenue for each of the current pac 10 schools. And given the current state of college athletics and skyrocketing salaries, costs, and building costs if you want to upgrade in anything, then I don't really see the PAC 10 making a move that costs them money, even if it is only a small loss. I guarantee you colorado would not be in the PAC ten if the PAC thought that they never had a shot at Texas.

the only way to offset that is to negotiate a new TV deal, and nothing has been reported to suggest that will happen anytime soon. Again I am just a dude with a keyboard so I have no real basis, but this is my opinion and you asked for it.

So honestly I don't see the PAC taking Utah right now. And, I am not surprised the Utah AD said today they haven't even been contacted by the PAC 10, which of course he could be lying but I believe him because for some reason it seems to be really hard to keep a secret in the state of utah between utah and byu. But, what do I know, I'm just a doctor, and as we all know things can change at any point in time.


I believe you are correct. If Utah is offered, they'll accept immediately. But my hunch is Utah does not bring enough to share the money and won't be offered, at least not right now. SLC is the 31st biggest market.

If Utah stays, doesn't that put the top 4 MWC teams clearly ahead of top 4 Big (whatever) teams in their new 10 team conference? UT and OU certainly are on par, then you'd have to put Tech and Okie State? Or would you put Mizzou? Give me Boise State, TCU, BYU and Utah if you are basing only on the football field over any of those 2 + UT and OU.

 

[ms19]

Pac Commissioner from the very beginning said he had an expansion plan to go to 12, 14, or 16. He never said they may stay at 11. This is the part that makes me nervous. I cannot think of one other school besides byu or utah that would fit.

 

[HFrog1999]

QUOTE(ms19 @ Jun 15 2010, 04:42 PM) [snapback]580255[/snapback]
Pac Commissioner from the very beginning said he had an expansion plan to go to 12, 14, or 16. He never said they may stay at 11. This is the part that makes me nervous. I cannot think of one other school besides byu or utah that would fit.


He made some statements that they could stay at 11. I agree with you that it's not their long term plan though.

I just wonder if the Pac-10 is really ready to change their whole structure just to add Utah. If they add Utah they go to a conference championship. That's a major shift just for Utah.

Do they really want to risk Utah knocking off an undefeated USC in a championship game to go to the Rose Bowl?