(12-23-2012 05:44 PM)Yoda Wrote:  

(12-23-2012 05:21 PM)SleepingGiantsFan Wrote:  I'm becoming very concerned about Yoda. He's been on the SDSU board for more than a decade and was once generally regarded to be a very valuable contributor. However, over the last couple years, his posts have become more and more bizarre and illogical.

As an example, he now seems to be the only non-Bronco who argues on the MWC board that that conference should give Boise the store in order to keep them in. It's all just really, really odd.

I'm concerned about you as well my friend. Your inability to read and comprehend is going to bite you in the butt one day. I didn't say that we should give Boise anything. In fact, I specifically argued against special treatment.

That thread was suggesting a change in the basic funding model used by conferences now. Currently, conference income is a function of membership; I suggested that it should be a function instead of performance -- that members should retain all or substantially all of the income that they generate (less a percentage that is used to fund the conference office/operations).

Boise, for example, has generated millions of dollars of conference income that they are forced to share with schools that have failed to make the commitment necessary to themselves contribute to conference income. I don't blame them for wanting to keep more of that money and doing so wouldn't be "giving them the store". It would be ceasing the current practice of living off their largess. If schools could keep the money that they have earned, it would cut down on (but not end) all the conference shopping.

I didn't suggest that the MWC should cave in and give them what they wanted, however. Instead, I said that I wouldn't have a problem if ALL of the schools in the conference were given the option of either negotiating their own contracts or taking part in a conference negotiated contract. If everybody has the option, then it is not special treatment.

Yoda out...

That model is something I suggested a few times more than a year ago might keep SDSU and Boise in the MWC since we would obviously earn so much more than the likes of Wyoming and CSU. However, correct me if I'm wrong but you completely opposed the idea then. Your rationale was we're all in this together and should therefore split the conference's revenue straight down the middle. Now because Kustra has gotten out his big stick - with which he never walks softly - you've changed your tune.

(12-23-2012 06:09 PM)SleepingGiantsFan Wrote:  

(12-23-2012 05:44 PM)Yoda Wrote:  

(12-23-2012 05:21 PM)SleepingGiantsFan Wrote:  I'm becoming very concerned about Yoda. He's been on the SDSU board for more than a decade and was once generally regarded to be a very valuable contributor. However, over the last couple years, his posts have become more and more bizarre and illogical.

As an example, he now seems to be the only non-Bronco who argues on the MWC board that that conference should give Boise the store in order to keep them in. It's all just really, really odd.

I'm concerned about you as well my friend. Your inability to read and comprehend is going to bite you in the butt one day. I didn't say that we should give Boise anything. In fact, I specifically argued against special treatment.

That thread was suggesting a change in the basic funding model used by conferences now. Currently, conference income is a function of membership; I suggested that it should be a function instead of performance -- that members should retain all or substantially all of the income that they generate (less a percentage that is used to fund the conference office/operations).

Boise, for example, has generated millions of dollars of conference income that they are forced to share with schools that have failed to make the commitment necessary to themselves contribute to conference income. I don't blame them for wanting to keep more of that money and doing so wouldn't be "giving them the store". It would be ceasing the current practice of living off their largess. If schools could keep the money that they have earned, it would cut down on (but not end) all the conference shopping.

I didn't suggest that the MWC should cave in and give them what they wanted, however. Instead, I said that I wouldn't have a problem if ALL of the schools in the conference were given the option of either negotiating their own contracts or taking part in a conference negotiated contract. If everybody has the option, then it is not special treatment.

Yoda out...

That model is something I suggested a few times more than a year ago might keep SDSU and Boise in the MWC since we would obviously earn so much more than the likes of Wyoming and CSU. However, correct me if I'm wrong but you completely opposed the idea then. Your rationale was we're all in this together and should therefore split the conference's revenue straight down the middle. Now because Kustra has gotten out his big stick - with which he never walks softly - you've changed your tune.

You're confusing me with somebody else. I've argued this for years.

Clearly, we've long since left the days where college sports was the collegial promotion of amateur athletics among like minded, regional universities. It has become a business -- a cutthroat business -- and yet we have an antiquated funding model that looks like it was developed by Karl Marx. It's a sort of athletic welfare state, where the successful fund the unsuccessful and can't grow their programs because of it.

Yoda out...

Celebrating this is similar to celebrating South Florida saying they are committed to the Big East. The only ones who can say that are the ones who don't feel they have a realistic shot of landing anywhere better.

I think more people read the newspaper with a cup of coffee on this board than in the real world anymore

(12-23-2012 12:04 PM)k5james Wrote:  

(12-23-2012 11:53 AM)PEO16 Wrote:  SDSU wants national exposure. Many more TV sets in the be than the mwc.
The teams that run the MWC (Air Force, New Mexico, Colo State, Wyoming - a political minefield) have no interest in national exposure. (Air Force obviously doesn't need it from an athletic conference). They like their regional league. This is an organization that waited years to take Boise and Fresno. Enjoy.

This. We're done propping up the three ugly sisters on the front range.

You are a fool if you truly believe this. There are no programs in FBS that don't want national exposure. This is why I'm so glad that SDSU is leaving the MWC. The arrogance of your program and the fans are just ridiculous. They want to act like they are some big name program that has been holding up the conference. This is simply not true. For all the posturing, and bravado, history speaks for itself.

Historically speaking, SDSU has been bad in both football and basketball. Prior to Steve Fisher, the Aztecs made all of three NCAA tournaments appearances, losing in the first round in all three. In fact, SDSU had 14 losing seasons out of 15 prior to Fisher joining the Aztecs. Fisher obviously has improved the basketball side immensely in the last 10 years. With Fisher they’ve made it as far as the Sweet 16.

Conversely, Wyoming, which is supposedly one of the worst programs in the MWC, and one of your "ugly sisters on the front range", has had far more success in both programs, with much less resources available to them. Wyoming has a National Championship in basketball. Granted it was in 1943, but that’s more than anyone else in the MWC, besides UNLV, can say. They also have a NIT championship game appearance. Hell, even the UW women have won a WNIT championship.

The football program has been just as bad as basketball, however. 2-6 all time in bowls. One, count it, one bowl victory in the last 42 years. They’ve had some minor success in football the past few years, but that hasn’t translated into bowl victories.

Wyoming football isn’t great, but given the circumstances, they do the best they can with what they’re given. 6-7 all time in bowls, including going 2-1 in the last 10 years. That’s far more than SDSU can claim. Or should we just ignore the black hole that is SDSU football from 1980-2009? 10 winning seasons in that stretch, while Wyoming had 15 during that same stretch. Sure sounds like a top tier program to me...

(12-25-2012 11:01 AM)Dantz Wrote:  

(12-23-2012 12:04 PM)k5james Wrote:  

(12-23-2012 11:53 AM)PEO16 Wrote:  SDSU wants national exposure. Many more TV sets in the be than the mwc.
The teams that run the MWC (Air Force, New Mexico, Colo State, Wyoming - a political minefield) have no interest in national exposure. (Air Force obviously doesn't need it from an athletic conference). They like their regional league. This is an organization that waited years to take Boise and Fresno. Enjoy.

This. We're done propping up the three ugly sisters on the front range.

You are a fool if you truly believe this. There are no programs in FBS that don't want national exposure. This is why I'm so glad that SDSU is leaving the MWC. The arrogance of your program and the fans are just ridiculous. They want to act like they are some big name program that has been holding up the conference. This is simply not true. For all the posturing, and bravado, history speaks for itself.

Historically speaking, SDSU has been bad in both football and basketball. Prior to Steve Fisher, the Aztecs made all of three NCAA tournaments appearances, losing in the first round in all three. In fact, SDSU had 14 losing seasons out of 15 prior to Fisher joining the Aztecs. Fisher obviously has improved the basketball side immensely in the last 10 years. With Fisher they’ve made it as far as the Sweet 16.

Conversely, Wyoming, which is supposedly one of the worst programs in the MWC, and one of your "ugly sisters on the front range", has had far more success in both programs, with much less resources available to them. Wyoming has a National Championship in basketball. Granted it was in 1943, but that’s more than anyone else in the MWC, besides UNLV, can say. They also have a NIT championship game appearance. Hell, even the UW women have won a WNIT championship.

The football program has been just as bad as basketball, however. 2-6 all time in bowls. One, count it, one bowl victory in the last 42 years. They’ve had some minor success in football the past few years, but that hasn’t translated into bowl victories.

Wyoming football isn’t great, but given the circumstances, they do the best they can with what they’re given. 6-7 all time in bowls, including going 2-1 in the last 10 years. That’s far more than SDSU can claim. Or should we just ignore the black hole that is SDSU football from 1980-2009? 10 winning seasons in that stretch, while Wyoming had 15 during that same stretch. Sure sounds like a top tier program to me...

Lol, Wyoming athletics has won TWO MWC titles in the history of the MWC...TWO...let that sink in.

SDSU won four this semester...

(12-25-2012 12:56 PM)k5james Wrote:  

(12-25-2012 11:01 AM)Dantz Wrote:  

(12-23-2012 12:04 PM)k5james Wrote:  

(12-23-2012 11:53 AM)PEO16 Wrote:  SDSU wants national exposure. Many more TV sets in the be than the mwc.
The teams that run the MWC (Air Force, New Mexico, Colo State, Wyoming - a political minefield) have no interest in national exposure. (Air Force obviously doesn't need it from an athletic conference). They like their regional league. This is an organization that waited years to take Boise and Fresno. Enjoy.

This. We're done propping up the three ugly sisters on the front range.

You are a fool if you truly believe this. There are no programs in FBS that don't want national exposure. This is why I'm so glad that SDSU is leaving the MWC. The arrogance of your program and the fans are just ridiculous. They want to act like they are some big name program that has been holding up the conference. This is simply not true. For all the posturing, and bravado, history speaks for itself.

Historically speaking, SDSU has been bad in both football and basketball. Prior to Steve Fisher, the Aztecs made all of three NCAA tournaments appearances, losing in the first round in all three. In fact, SDSU had 14 losing seasons out of 15 prior to Fisher joining the Aztecs. Fisher obviously has improved the basketball side immensely in the last 10 years. With Fisher they’ve made it as far as the Sweet 16.

Conversely, Wyoming, which is supposedly one of the worst programs in the MWC, and one of your "ugly sisters on the front range", has had far more success in both programs, with much less resources available to them. Wyoming has a National Championship in basketball. Granted it was in 1943, but that’s more than anyone else in the MWC, besides UNLV, can say. They also have a NIT championship game appearance. Hell, even the UW women have won a WNIT championship.

The football program has been just as bad as basketball, however. 2-6 all time in bowls. One, count it, one bowl victory in the last 42 years. They’ve had some minor success in football the past few years, but that hasn’t translated into bowl victories.

Wyoming football isn’t great, but given the circumstances, they do the best they can with what they’re given. 6-7 all time in bowls, including going 2-1 in the last 10 years. That’s far more than SDSU can claim. Or should we just ignore the black hole that is SDSU football from 1980-2009? 10 winning seasons in that stretch, while Wyoming had 15 during that same stretch. Sure sounds like a top tier program to me...

Lol, Wyoming athletics has won TWO MWC titles in the history of the MWC...TWO...let that sink in.

SDSU won four this semester...

SDSU averaged about 30.2k per game at home in the 2nd largest city in California with a population of more than 1.3 million. Wyoming averaged 19.5k per game in a city of approximately 30k. The weather in San Diego is usually very mild year round. The weather in Laramie can range from windy, snowy, hot, freezing, etc. in late fall/early winter.

Lol, San Diego doesn't even give a **** about your former JC, let alone fans on the east coast.

(12-25-2012 01:21 PM)Dantz Wrote:  

(12-25-2012 12:56 PM)k5james Wrote:  

(12-25-2012 11:01 AM)Dantz Wrote:  

(12-23-2012 12:04 PM)k5james Wrote:  

(12-23-2012 11:53 AM)PEO16 Wrote:  SDSU wants national exposure. Many more TV sets in the be than the mwc.
The teams that run the MWC (Air Force, New Mexico, Colo State, Wyoming - a political minefield) have no interest in national exposure. (Air Force obviously doesn't need it from an athletic conference). They like their regional league. This is an organization that waited years to take Boise and Fresno. Enjoy.

This. We're done propping up the three ugly sisters on the front range.

You are a fool if you truly believe this. There are no programs in FBS that don't want national exposure. This is why I'm so glad that SDSU is leaving the MWC. The arrogance of your program and the fans are just ridiculous. They want to act like they are some big name program that has been holding up the conference. This is simply not true. For all the posturing, and bravado, history speaks for itself.

Historically speaking, SDSU has been bad in both football and basketball. Prior to Steve Fisher, the Aztecs made all of three NCAA tournaments appearances, losing in the first round in all three. In fact, SDSU had 14 losing seasons out of 15 prior to Fisher joining the Aztecs. Fisher obviously has improved the basketball side immensely in the last 10 years. With Fisher they’ve made it as far as the Sweet 16.

Conversely, Wyoming, which is supposedly one of the worst programs in the MWC, and one of your "ugly sisters on the front range", has had far more success in both programs, with much less resources available to them. Wyoming has a National Championship in basketball. Granted it was in 1943, but that’s more than anyone else in the MWC, besides UNLV, can say. They also have a NIT championship game appearance. Hell, even the UW women have won a WNIT championship.

The football program has been just as bad as basketball, however. 2-6 all time in bowls. One, count it, one bowl victory in the last 42 years. They’ve had some minor success in football the past few years, but that hasn’t translated into bowl victories.

Wyoming football isn’t great, but given the circumstances, they do the best they can with what they’re given. 6-7 all time in bowls, including going 2-1 in the last 10 years. That’s far more than SDSU can claim. Or should we just ignore the black hole that is SDSU football from 1980-2009? 10 winning seasons in that stretch, while Wyoming had 15 during that same stretch. Sure sounds like a top tier program to me...

Lol, Wyoming athletics has won TWO MWC titles in the history of the MWC...TWO...let that sink in.

SDSU won four this semester...

SDSU averaged about 30.2k per game at home in the 2nd largest city in California with a population of more than 1.3 million. Wyoming averaged 19.5k per game in a city of approximately 30k. The weather in San Diego is usually very mild year round. The weather in Laramie can range from windy, snowy, hot, freezing, etc. in late fall/early winter.

Lol, San Diego doesn't even give a **** about your former JC, let alone fans on the east coast.

When wyoming comes to San Diego you can always count on a attendance plunge.

(12-25-2012 01:33 PM)Blood and Ebony Wrote:  

(12-25-2012 01:21 PM)Dantz Wrote:  

(12-25-2012 12:56 PM)k5james Wrote:  

(12-25-2012 11:01 AM)Dantz Wrote:  

(12-23-2012 12:04 PM)k5james Wrote:  This. We're done propping up the three ugly sisters on the front range.

You are a fool if you truly believe this. There are no programs in FBS that don't want national exposure. This is why I'm so glad that SDSU is leaving the MWC. The arrogance of your program and the fans are just ridiculous. They want to act like they are some big name program that has been holding up the conference. This is simply not true. For all the posturing, and bravado, history speaks for itself.

Historically speaking, SDSU has been bad in both football and basketball. Prior to Steve Fisher, the Aztecs made all of three NCAA tournaments appearances, losing in the first round in all three. In fact, SDSU had 14 losing seasons out of 15 prior to Fisher joining the Aztecs. Fisher obviously has improved the basketball side immensely in the last 10 years. With Fisher they’ve made it as far as the Sweet 16.

Conversely, Wyoming, which is supposedly one of the worst programs in the MWC, and one of your "ugly sisters on the front range", has had far more success in both programs, with much less resources available to them. Wyoming has a National Championship in basketball. Granted it was in 1943, but that’s more than anyone else in the MWC, besides UNLV, can say. They also have a NIT championship game appearance. Hell, even the UW women have won a WNIT championship.

The football program has been just as bad as basketball, however. 2-6 all time in bowls. One, count it, one bowl victory in the last 42 years. They’ve had some minor success in football the past few years, but that hasn’t translated into bowl victories.

Wyoming football isn’t great, but given the circumstances, they do the best they can with what they’re given. 6-7 all time in bowls, including going 2-1 in the last 10 years. That’s far more than SDSU can claim. Or should we just ignore the black hole that is SDSU football from 1980-2009? 10 winning seasons in that stretch, while Wyoming had 15 during that same stretch. Sure sounds like a top tier program to me...

Lol, Wyoming athletics has won TWO MWC titles in the history of the MWC...TWO...let that sink in.

SDSU won four this semester...

SDSU averaged about 30.2k per game at home in the 2nd largest city in California with a population of more than 1.3 million. Wyoming averaged 19.5k per game in a city of approximately 30k. The weather in San Diego is usually very mild year round. The weather in Laramie can range from windy, snowy, hot, freezing, etc. in late fall/early winter.

Lol, San Diego doesn't even give a **** about your former JC, let alone fans on the east coast.

When wyoming comes to San Diego you can always count on a attendance plunge.

Over 101,000 people watched Alabama beat Western Carolina, which is in the FCS division. Conversely, only 35,000 showed up for SDSU's bowl game against BYU, who is/was a major rival. It was the biggest game of the year for your team. It was also a home game for SDSU. What's that say about SDSU's fans?

Wyoming - looking to leach media dollars off people with actual media markets.

Free Range = Free Ride

(12-23-2012 06:40 PM)Bearcat_Bounce Wrote:  Celebrating this is similar to celebrating South Florida saying they are committed to the Big East. The only ones who can say that are the ones who don't feel they have a realistic shot of landing anywhere better.

You're going to look like a tool when USF gets picked over you.

If Miami & FSU are the 2 that bail the ACC next, USF is in, and UC may even get passed over for UCF.

Not sure why UC fans have turned their hostility towards USF lately.

(12-25-2012 01:21 PM)Dantz Wrote:  

(12-25-2012 12:56 PM)k5james Wrote:  

(12-25-2012 11:01 AM)Dantz Wrote:  

(12-23-2012 12:04 PM)k5james Wrote:  

(12-23-2012 11:53 AM)PEO16 Wrote:  SDSU wants national exposure. Many more TV sets in the be than the mwc.
The teams that run the MWC (Air Force, New Mexico, Colo State, Wyoming - a political minefield) have no interest in national exposure. (Air Force obviously doesn't need it from an athletic conference). They like their regional league. This is an organization that waited years to take Boise and Fresno. Enjoy.

This. We're done propping up the three ugly sisters on the front range.

You are a fool if you truly believe this. There are no programs in FBS that don't want national exposure. This is why I'm so glad that SDSU is leaving the MWC. The arrogance of your program and the fans are just ridiculous. They want to act like they are some big name program that has been holding up the conference. This is simply not true. For all the posturing, and bravado, history speaks for itself.

Historically speaking, SDSU has been bad in both football and basketball. Prior to Steve Fisher, the Aztecs made all of three NCAA tournaments appearances, losing in the first round in all three. In fact, SDSU had 14 losing seasons out of 15 prior to Fisher joining the Aztecs. Fisher obviously has improved the basketball side immensely in the last 10 years. With Fisher they’ve made it as far as the Sweet 16.

Conversely, Wyoming, which is supposedly one of the worst programs in the MWC, and one of your "ugly sisters on the front range", has had far more success in both programs, with much less resources available to them. Wyoming has a National Championship in basketball. Granted it was in 1943, but that’s more than anyone else in the MWC, besides UNLV, can say. They also have a NIT championship game appearance. Hell, even the UW women have won a WNIT championship.

The football program has been just as bad as basketball, however. 2-6 all time in bowls. One, count it, one bowl victory in the last 42 years. They’ve had some minor success in football the past few years, but that hasn’t translated into bowl victories.

Wyoming football isn’t great, but given the circumstances, they do the best they can with what they’re given. 6-7 all time in bowls, including going 2-1 in the last 10 years. That’s far more than SDSU can claim. Or should we just ignore the black hole that is SDSU football from 1980-2009? 10 winning seasons in that stretch, while Wyoming had 15 during that same stretch. Sure sounds like a top tier program to me...

Lol, Wyoming athletics has won TWO MWC titles in the history of the MWC...TWO...let that sink in.

SDSU won four this semester...

SDSU averaged about 30.2k per game at home in the 2nd largest city in California with a population of more than 1.3 million. Wyoming averaged 19.5k per game in a city of approximately 30k. The weather in San Diego is usually very mild year round. The weather in Laramie can range from windy, snowy, hot, freezing, etc. in late fall/early winter.

Lol, San Diego doesn't even give a **** about your former JC, let alone fans on the east coast.

Only a Wyoming fan would try to talk **** about a school averaging 30k+ when they can't even average 20k. Lol.

JC? You must have us confused with Boise. SDSU was never a JC.

Hey, when are the other five Wyoming fans in the world going to come here to tell us how FOS we are?

(12-27-2012 04:57 PM)SleepingGiantsFan Wrote:  Hey, when are the other five Wyoming fans in the world going to come here to tell us how FOS we are?

I'm sure Cowboy Junky will be arriving any day now

(12-27-2012 06:51 PM)dshawfan Wrote:  

(12-27-2012 04:57 PM)SleepingGiantsFan Wrote:  Hey, when are the other five Wyoming fans in the world going to come here to tell us how FOS we are?

I'm sure Cowboy Junky will be arriving any day now

Give him time. He travels by covered wagon.