(06-11-2013 10:21 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  Wow, not sure what he could control but the Aresco tenure has been below average at best. The TV exposure is all we have and to me that is just ESPN using the conference to fill up time on their numerous networks.

Yeah, it's all Aresco's fault.

40,000 was at the international bowl when Buffalo and UConn were there.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Bowl

(06-14-2013 10:13 AM)Bull Wrote:  

(06-14-2013 09:42 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-14-2013 08:19 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-14-2013 08:09 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(06-14-2013 07:56 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Keep in mind that the performance incentives apply to every MW team, not just Boise.

I'm sure MWC teams like Wyoming, New Mexico, Colorado State, UNLV, Hawaii, etc...are busy planning for the huge waterfall of CASH that their football programs will be receiving soon with all of these "incentives".

MWC schools had to get on their knees, BEG and BUY back Boise State...which is exactly what happened.

Just look at the MWC TV games slated for this year...and there is your answer as to where those incentives are currently favoring.

I agree they favor Boise because Boise is the best team in the league. The crap teams of the MW would have been much worse off without Boise in their league---they had little choice and it was smart of the MW to create the performance based bonus. Its also a fact our league is worse off with no Boise. We really didn't have to give Boise a special deal.

Keeping Boise required one thing. We just needed a legitimate western all-sports division. Our presidents chose not to do that. It is what it is. The presidents wanted to be a smaller regional league just like the rest of the G5. They didnt want to be the first nationwide all-sports league. In the end, thats the decision that set the table and led to Boise regretting thier choice to move to the Big East. The MW bribes just gave Boise the final incentive to move back. Remember, Boise was going to have to pay an entry fee just to enter the Big West along with almost 1 million a year in travel subsidies just to have a place to put thier Olympic sports. They really were getting an incredibly crappy deal from us once the TV contract numbers fell to the 2-3 million mark.

For the last time (I hope), the C7 PRESIDENTS BLOCKED A WESTERN DIVISION OF ANY SORT. That is how we got Tulane + ECU football only. THEN they withdrew. By then, it was too late to make enough TV money to keep Boise and SDSU.

The football school presidents, who actually had a vote back then, did NOT cause the problem. The timing of the C7 having the majority votes was the problem.

An almost perfect 2 year storm of bad luck (or a plot against us) and timing... it's almost Machiavellian. Plucking schools out just when TV negotiations were about to begin. The denegration in the media that made no sense at all given our past performance. The staging of exits and entries to ensure the current voting bloc was actually somewhat against us.

And through it all we've got the best lineup possible now... we just have to rebuild. But it's all Arescos fault.

Maybe not everything that has gone wrong is Aresco's fault, but I sure can't think of a single thing he's done to earn his paycheck. Maybe someone smarter than me can help with this?

(06-14-2013 09:50 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-14-2013 09:42 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-14-2013 08:19 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-14-2013 08:09 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(06-14-2013 07:56 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Keep in mind that the performance incentives apply to every MW team, not just Boise.

I'm sure MWC teams like Wyoming, New Mexico, Colorado State, UNLV, Hawaii, etc...are busy planning for the huge waterfall of CASH that their football programs will be receiving soon with all of these "incentives".

MWC schools had to get on their knees, BEG and BUY back Boise State...which is exactly what happened.

Just look at the MWC TV games slated for this year...and there is your answer as to where those incentives are currently favoring.

I agree they favor Boise because Boise is the best team in the league. The crap teams of the MW would have been much worse off without Boise in their league---they had little choice and it was smart of the MW to create the performance based bonus. Its also a fact our league is worse off with no Boise. We really didn't have to give Boise a special deal.

Keeping Boise required one thing. We just needed a legitimate western all-sports division. Our presidents chose not to do that. It is what it is. The presidents wanted to be a smaller regional league just like the rest of the G5. They didnt want to be the first nationwide all-sports league. In the end, thats the decision that set the table and led to Boise regretting thier choice to move to the Big East. The MW bribes just gave Boise the final incentive to move back. Remember, Boise was going to have to pay an entry fee just to enter the Big West along with almost 1 million a year in travel subsidies just to have a place to put thier Olympic sports. They really were getting an incredibly crappy deal from us once the TV contract numbers fell to the 2-3 million mark.

For the last time (I hope), the C7 PRESIDENTS BLOCKED A WESTERN DIVISION OF ANY SORT. That is how we got Tulane + ECU football only. THEN they withdrew. By then, it was too late to make enough TV money to keep Boise and SDSU.

The football school presidents, who actually had a vote back then, did NOT cause the problem. The timing of the C7 having the majority votes was the problem.

I said the presidents did not want to do that. That would include the C-7 presidents. But from what I have heard, there was never even a sufficient majority among the football schools to create a western all-sports division.

IT DOES NOT MATTER. There were only 3 schools with voting privileges at the time: USF, UC, UConn, with some question about whether Temple had a vote. The 4 could have been unanimous, and it would not matter. There was never a time where your theory could ever have been put to the test, so it is wrong, or irrelevant, at best.

The C7 made even the consideration of ANYTHING beyond BSU and SDSU, football only, a moot point.

(06-14-2013 07:31 PM)TripleA Wrote:  IT DOES NOT MATTER. There were only 3 schools with voting privileges at the time: USF, UC, UConn, with some question about whether Temple had a vote. The 4 could have been unanimous, and it would not matter. There was never a time where your theory could ever have been put to the test, so it is wrong, or irrelevant, at best.

The C7 made even the consideration of ANYTHING beyond BSU and SDSU, football only, a moot point.

If UConn, USF, UC, Louisville and Rutgers thought a Western all-sports division was a priority, THEY could have split from the C7. The prenup works (worked) both ways. I could see an argument in the summer of 2012 that a nationwide football-focused all-sports league was a better bet than the hybrid Big East.

(06-14-2013 07:31 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-14-2013 09:50 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-14-2013 09:42 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-14-2013 08:19 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-14-2013 08:09 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  I'm sure MWC teams like Wyoming, New Mexico, Colorado State, UNLV, Hawaii, etc...are busy planning for the huge waterfall of CASH that their football programs will be receiving soon with all of these "incentives".

1) MWC schools had to get on their knees, BEG and BUY back Boise State...which is exactly what happened.

Just look at the MWC TV games slated for this year...and there is your answer as to where those incentives are currently favoring.

I agree they favor Boise because Boise is the best team in the league. The crap teams of the MW would have been much worse off without Boise in their league---they had little choice and it was smart of the MW to create the performance based bonus. Its also a fact our league is worse off with no Boise. We really didn't have to give Boise a special deal.

2) Keeping Boise required one thing. We just needed a legitimate western all-sports division. Our presidents chose not to do that. It is what it is. The presidents wanted to be a smaller regional league just like the rest of the G5. They didnt want to be the first nationwide all-sports league. In the end, thats the decision that set the table and led to Boise regretting thier choice to move to the Big East. The MW bribes just gave Boise the final incentive to move back. Remember, Boise was going to have to pay an entry fee just to enter the Big West along with almost 1 million a year in travel subsidies just to have a place to put thier Olympic sports. They really were getting an incredibly crappy deal from us once the TV contract numbers fell to the 2-3 million mark.

For the last time (I hope), the C7 PRESIDENTS BLOCKED A WESTERN DIVISION OF ANY SORT. That is how we got Tulane + ECU football only. THEN they withdrew. By then, it was too late to make enough TV money to keep Boise and SDSU.

The football school presidents, who actually had a vote back then, did NOT cause the problem. 3) The timing of the C7 having the majority votes was the problem.

I said the presidents did not want to do that. That would include the C-7 presidents. But from what I have heard, there was never even a sufficient majority among the football schools to create a western all-sports division.

IT DOES NOT MATTER. There were only 3 schools with voting privileges at the time: USF, UC, UConn, with some question about whether Temple had a vote. The 4 could have been unanimous, and it would not matter. There was never a time where your theory could ever have been put to the test, so it is wrong, or irrelevant, at best.

4) The C7 made even the consideration of ANYTHING beyond BSU and SDSU, football only, a moot point.

1) I won’t disagree with the point that the MWC schools were concerned. However, it was their commissioner that was concerned enough to use ingenuity to create an incentive based media deal for his entire conference while locked into a contract. His ingenuity is a quality that I’ve yet to see displayed by our commissioner. There is no way the MWC should have been able to get Boise St back with the meager $ the conference is locked into while we were negotiating a tv deal. That defies comprehension when considering the supposed tv expert commissioner that we have. I wonder if he even suggested a similar media deal for football and another for bball (to appease the C7). He was totally out maneuvered by the MWC commissioner.

2) I have to disagree with the point that we needed “a legitimate western all-sports division” to keep Boise St. The school agreed to become a football only member. Consequently, it wasn’t about a western division, it was about the division of $$. Our commissioner should have suggested the aforementioned media deal to all members and informed them on the positive possibilities of such a media endeavor. Boise St would have made more money in this conference—period. How the heck could our commissioner not have convinced Boise St that the same MWC media deal would have been more profitable with us since we were negotiating a tv deal?

3) I can’t say for sure that the C7 was the problem, but I never heard or read that we proposed a similar and better media deal than what the MWC was unbelievably able to get Boise St back with.

4) I have to disagree because our commissioner contacted UNLV and Fresno St about joining. Therefore, the C7 must have given their approval regarding those schools. This illustrates that the C7 was willing to include additional western schools in the old Big East.

(06-14-2013 07:56 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-14-2013 07:31 PM)TripleA Wrote:  IT DOES NOT MATTER. There were only 3 schools with voting privileges at the time: USF, UC, UConn, with some question about whether Temple had a vote. The 4 could have been unanimous, and it would not matter. There was never a time where your theory could ever have been put to the test, so it is wrong, or irrelevant, at best.

The C7 made even the consideration of ANYTHING beyond BSU and SDSU, football only, a moot point.

If UConn, USF, UC, Louisville and Rutgers thought a Western all-sports division was a priority, THEY could have split from the C7. The prenup works (worked) both ways. I could see an argument in the summer of 2012 that a nationwide football-focused all-sports league was a better bet than the hybrid Big East.

Rutgers and L'Ville were already heading out the door. They didn't have to worry about a pre nup and splitting from the C7. They were already secretly engaged and heading toward the altar with another suitor with a boat load of money and a printing press to keep that money rolling in.

(06-15-2013 07:05 AM)panite Wrote:  

(06-14-2013 07:56 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-14-2013 07:31 PM)TripleA Wrote:  IT DOES NOT MATTER. There were only 3 schools with voting privileges at the time: USF, UC, UConn, with some question about whether Temple had a vote. The 4 could have been unanimous, and it would not matter. There was never a time where your theory could ever have been put to the test, so it is wrong, or irrelevant, at best.

The C7 made even the consideration of ANYTHING beyond BSU and SDSU, football only, a moot point.

If UConn, USF, UC, Louisville and Rutgers thought a Western all-sports division was a priority, THEY could have split from the C7. The prenup works (worked) both ways. I could see an argument in the summer of 2012 that a nationwide football-focused all-sports league was a better bet than the hybrid Big East.

Rutgers and L'Ville were already heading out the door. They didn't have to worry about a pre nup and splitting from the C7. They were already secretly engaged and heading toward the altar with another suitor with a boat load of money and a printing press to keep that money rolling in.

They had hopes, and they had feelers out, but their ticket wasn't punched until they got the invitation. That said, it's very likely that RU and UL plus UConn and UC were too focused on escaping to focus on building the conference.

Or they may have figured that the money was going to roll in for the hybrid 17-for-basketball 13plus1-for-football Big East, so why spend a lot of capital to swap the C7 for UNLV and a non-hybrid league.

Louisville never carried about basketball only. Yes, basketball lay our foundation, but Louisville is an all-sports school now. After West Virginia, TCU, Pitt and Syracuse split, it was a losing battle to try and rebuild the Big East. I mean no disrespect to any other school, but Louisville had bigger goals that many schools in the AAC had.

(06-14-2013 07:56 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-14-2013 07:31 PM)TripleA Wrote:  IT DOES NOT MATTER. There were only 3 schools with voting privileges at the time: USF, UC, UConn, with some question about whether Temple had a vote. The 4 could have been unanimous, and it would not matter. There was never a time where your theory could ever have been put to the test, so it is wrong, or irrelevant, at best.

The C7 made even the consideration of ANYTHING beyond BSU and SDSU, football only, a moot point.

If UConn, USF, UC, Louisville and Rutgers thought a Western all-sports division was a priority, THEY could have split from the C7. The prenup works (worked) both ways. I could see an argument in the summer of 2012 that a nationwide football-focused all-sports league was a better bet than the hybrid Big East.

Correct. Very strong rumors of a split had been circulating since at least September. The presidents also knew 6 additional football votes were coming in July. If a western all sports division was a priority--why the sudden rush to add eastern schools in November when league membership was still at 10? Even if the C7 blocked an all sports division, the presidents had to know adding additional eastern schools would be very poorly recieved in the west.

So in November, we know the presidents would have known that a C7 split was a very good possibility and that 6 additional football votes were coming in July. The best move if a western all sports division was a priority in November of 2012 was to do nothing and just keep your powder dry since the voting dynamics would be changing soon (the 6 votes and a possible split). It was also likley that any split would occur before the new member joined. It was aslo known that adding even more teams to the east would end the possibility of a western all sports division forever. The situation in November was a unique opportunity to balance the east and west football divisions.

The fact the presidents rushed forward to add two eastern teams in November indicates to me that a western all-sports division either was not a priority or had insufficient support among the football schools to ever occur (even post split).

I don't think it needed to be western all sports. Just like SDSU and BSU, I'm sure Frenso and UNLV could have parked their Olympic sports in the Big West or whatever. The idea was to constrain all the cross country travel to FB, where it really is no big issue.

Of course, if the Western got big enough we could have had western and eastern all sports. But if the C7 had stayed, and we added western allsports, it would have just been too big and ungangly.

I recall we did start to talk to Fresno and UNLV, but by then it was too late. I think they new the were going to get BSU back, and told us to pound sand.

Really, it makes no sense to argue about what could have been. NOW we have a very nice 12 team all sports conference. It's what a lot of us wanted all along... and I don't care what any angry trolls say, it's a dang good membership. If this membership sticks, I think we're going to be in very, very good shape when we renegotiate TV in about 3-4 years. That ACC GOR may have been the best thing that ever happened to us.

I love all the enthusiasm about the new logo. Go buy an AAC T shirt and wear it proudly.

The bright side is at least you don't have the basketball schools hanging around your neck anymore.

(06-15-2013 09:18 AM)Bull Wrote:  I don't think it needed to be western all sports. Just like SDSU and BSU, I'm sure Frenso and UNLV could have parked their Olympic sports in the Big West or whatever.

Exactly. Which is why those who say that once the C7 rejected an all-sports western division, that the loss of Boise and SDSU were inevitable. Absolutely not true.

(06-15-2013 09:18 AM)Bull Wrote:  Really, it makes no sense to argue about what could have been. NOW we have a very nice 12 team all sports conference. It's what a lot of us wanted all along...

True....

(06-14-2013 09:54 PM)Underdog Wrote:  4) I have to disagree because our commissioner contacted UNLV and Fresno St about joining. Therefore, the C7 must have given their approval regarding those schools. This illustrates that the C7 was willing to include additional western schools in the old Big East.

The commissioner did not need the C7's permission to contact UNLV and Fresno. But he was only putting out feelers for #14, football only, in case BYU and AFA fell through as #14.

My point was the C7 would NEVER allow anything beyond BSU, SDSU and a #14, all football only.

Also, I never said we needed a full western division, all sports. That was somebody else's point. I only said the C7 wouldn't allow it, even if anybody tried.

(06-15-2013 08:50 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-14-2013 07:56 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-14-2013 07:31 PM)TripleA Wrote:  IT DOES NOT MATTER. There were only 3 schools with voting privileges at the time: USF, UC, UConn, with some question about whether Temple had a vote. The 4 could have been unanimous, and it would not matter. There was never a time where your theory could ever have been put to the test, so it is wrong, or irrelevant, at best.

The C7 made even the consideration of ANYTHING beyond BSU and SDSU, football only, a moot point.

If UConn, USF, UC, Louisville and Rutgers thought a Western all-sports division was a priority, THEY could have split from the C7. The prenup works (worked) both ways. I could see an argument in the summer of 2012 that a nationwide football-focused all-sports league was a better bet than the hybrid Big East.

Correct. Very strong rumors of a split had been circulating since at least September. The presidents also knew 6 additional football votes were coming in July. If a western all sports division was a priority--why the sudden rush to add eastern schools in November when league membership was still at 10? Even if the C7 blocked an all sports division, the presidents had to know adding additional eastern schools would be very poorly recieved in the west.

So in November, we know the presidents would have known that a C7 split was a very good possibility and that 6 additional football votes were coming in July. The best move if a western all sports division was a priority in November of 2012 was to do nothing and just keep your powder dry since the voting dynamics would be changing soon (the 6 votes and a possible split). It was also likley that any split would occur before the new member joined. It was aslo known that adding even more teams to the east would end the possibility of a western all sports division forever. The situation in November was a unique opportunity to balance the east and west football divisions.

The fact the presidents rushed forward to add two eastern teams in November indicates to me that a western all-sports division either was not a priority or had insufficient support among the football schools to ever occur (even post split).

A western all sports division was never a priority, b/c the football schools didn't want the BB schools to split, or to split from them and leave the BE. The C7 had the majority vote when the presidents voted in Tulane and ECU. I think Aresco made a tactical mistake by pushing to add 2 teams, to show resilience, and the C7 would only allow Tulane and FB only for ECU.

P.S. How in hell did we get off on this tangent? Who gives a damn any more? It's over and done. I just don't want people misconstruing my posts.

(06-15-2013 01:28 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-14-2013 09:54 PM)Underdog Wrote:  4) I have to disagree because our commissioner contacted UNLV and Fresno St about joining. Therefore, the C7 must have given their approval regarding those schools. This illustrates that the C7 was willing to include additional western schools in the old Big East.

The commissioner did not need the C7's permission to contact UNLV and Fresno. But he was only putting out feelers for #14, football only, in case BYU and AFA fell through as #14.

My point was the C7 would NEVER allow anything beyond BSU, SDSU and a #14, all football only.

Also, I never said we needed a full western division, all sports. That was somebody else's point. I only said the C7 wouldn't allow it, even if anybody tried.

Maybe you're right, but I doubt that he would have wasted his time contacting schools that wouldn't have been approved in my opinion.

(06-15-2013 01:35 PM)TripleA Wrote:  How in hell did we get off on this tangent?

Welcome to the internet

Quote:Who gives a damn any more?

Ditto.

Quote:I just don't want people misconstruing my posts.

Heh, good luck with that!

(06-15-2013 02:08 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(06-15-2013 01:28 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-14-2013 09:54 PM)Underdog Wrote:  4) I have to disagree because our commissioner contacted UNLV and Fresno St about joining. Therefore, the C7 must have given their approval regarding those schools. This illustrates that the C7 was willing to include additional western schools in the old Big East.

The commissioner did not need the C7's permission to contact UNLV and Fresno. But he was only putting out feelers for #14, football only, in case BYU and AFA fell through as #14.

My point was the C7 would NEVER allow anything beyond BSU, SDSU and a #14, all football only.

Also, I never said we needed a full western division, all sports. That was somebody else's point. I only said the C7 wouldn't allow it, even if anybody tried.

Maybe you're right, but I doubt that he would have wasted his time contacting schools that wouldn't have been approved in my opinion.

He was contacting them about spot #14. That vote, for ONE school, football only, would have passed.

(06-15-2013 02:15 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(06-15-2013 01:35 PM)TripleA Wrote:  How in hell did we get off on this tangent?

Welcome to the internet

Quote:Who gives a damn any more?

Ditto.

Quote:I just don't want people misconstruing my posts.

Heh, good luck with that!

Yeah, yeah, one post out of a thousand, I need to vent frustration.