MWC wants to partner with Pac12

[Darth Snow]

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...pproaches-pac-12-about-west-coast-partnership

ASADENA, Calif. -- Mountain West commissioner Craig Thompson said his conference has approached the Pac-12 about what he calls a "best practices" connection -- sort of a West Coast alliance for nonconference scheduling, sharing of officials, and bowl matchups.

Thompson said there's nothing official but thinks the Pac-12 is receptive to the idea. The 24 teams in the Mountain West and Pac-12 comprise most of the West Coast college football landscape. Idaho and New Mexico State are Sun Belt-bound. BYU is an independent.

hmmm. It's nice when the serfs bend the knee voluntarily.

 

[MtnBuff]

Don't see what benefit this has for the PAC. MWC teams already are willing to schedule any games they can get with PAC teams, they need the money and exposure. All this does is give the MWC the credibility of being associated with a major conference. It could also force additional unwanted MWC match-ups getting in the way of more advantageous national match-ups. MWC teams could use it in recruiting some athletes that PAC schools want.

Ultimately there end game would be some sort of merger (highly unlikely,) MWC teams as expansion targets for the PAC (a little more likely,) and/or MWC access to the PAC 12 network visibility and maybe some of the money.

This would be a deal that would do a lot for the MWC and very little for the PAC.

 

[Junction]

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...pproaches-pac-12-about-west-coast-partnership



hmmm. It's nice when the serfs bend the knee voluntarily.

So long as they bring sufficient tribute to their Lords....

 

[SuperiorBuff]

Nancy Reagan says "just say no!"

 

[Darth Snow]

Don't see what benefit this has for the PAC. MWC teams already are willing to schedule any games they can get with PAC teams, they need the money and exposure. All this does is give the MWC the credibility of being associated with a major conference. It could also force additional unwanted MWC match-ups getting in the way of more advantageous national match-ups. MWC teams could use it in recruiting some athletes that PAC schools want.

Ultimately there end game would be some sort of merger (highly unlikely,) MWC teams as expansion targets for the PAC (a little more likely,) and/or MWC access to the PAC 12 network visibility and maybe some of the money.

This would be a deal that would do a lot for the MWC and very little for the PAC.

agreed. we got the money. They need the money. we already play them. Why give them more recognition for doing what they do already?

 

[leftybuff]

Screw the Mtn. Weenie and the shetland pony they rode in on....

Regarding the OP...asadena, really?

 

[White_Rabbit]

Somewhere nashbuff has a huge boner reading this thread.

 

[buff4bcs1985]

pass

 

[rosstr]

So the Pac12's inferior yet still main competitor in the West wants to ride the PAC12 coattails and benefit from exposure, PR and TV revenue?

Larry Scott can laugh in Craig Thompson's face.

 

[30Something]

Craig Thompson: "Larry, I want to talk about how the MWC and Pac12 can share ideas around scheduling to maximize success in the West"
Larry Scott: "Okay Craig...here's how this is gonna go down. We play Saturday and Saturday night. You can have Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday."
Thompson: "The NFL plays on Sunday right?"
Scott: "That's right. They're popular, so it must be a great day to play on."
Thompson: "Larry, I can't believe you'd agree that that. Where do I sign Sucka?"

 

[sackman]

What, exactly, is Thompson proposing? Some kind of scheduling alliance? What does that even mean?

 

[Duff Man]

We already play the MWC in the Vegas Bowl and the New Mexico Bowl. The last thing the PAC-12 is to think more regionally.

 

[InTheBuff]

hell no

 

[Gold]

We already have an agreement in place. When we call, they pick up. When they call, goes straight to voicemail. It's perfect, let's not mess with a good thing.

 

[Buffnik]

I'm not opposed to this at face value.

For the upcoming year, we'll play 2 of our 3 non-conference football games against MWC teams. In men's basketball, we'll play at least 3 MWC teams. In our other sports, scheduling is similar. If this improved officiating while cutting costs, I don't see how it hurts.

 

[MtnBuff]

I'm not opposed to this at face value.

For the upcoming year, we'll play 2 of our 3 non-conference football games against MWC teams. In men's basketball, we'll play at least 3 MWC teams. In our other sports, scheduling is similar. If this improved officiating while cutting costs, I don't see how it hurts.

Which is exactly the point. The MWC needs us much more than we need them. When we need something from them like an OOC game they jump because they need the money and playing PAC teams gives them a much bigger spotlight than they normally get. There isn't anything they can offer in a deal that we don't already get.

On the other hand I don't want us to be locked into a deal that benefits them much more than us that also restricts us from being able to say "not interested" when a better opportunity comes along.

As to officiating I have seen games with MWC officials. If it is possible they are worse than PAC officials. I don't see how it makes officiating significantly cheaper balancing locking us into an agreement with a lesser conference.

 

[Dark Bohner]

I'm not opposed to this at face value.

For the upcoming year, we'll play 2 of our 3 non-conference football games against MWC teams. In men's basketball, we'll play at least 3 MWC teams. In our other sports, scheduling is similar. If this improved officiating while cutting costs, I don't see how it hurts.

Which is exactly the point. The MWC needs us much more than we need them. When we need something from them like an OOC game they jump because they need the money and playing PAC teams gives them a much bigger spotlight than they normally get. There isn't anything they can offer in a deal that we don't already get.

On the other hand I don't want us to be locked into a deal that benefits them much more than us that also restricts us from being able to say "not interested" when a better opportunity comes along.

As to officiating I have seen games with MWC officials. If it is possible they are worse than PAC officials. I don't see how it makes officiating significantly cheaper balancing locking us into an agreement with a lesser conference.

Mtn illustrates the issue perfectly. We already get everything we need from the MWC. We don't need an "agreement" in place. We already have the worst situation in Colorado football history in the Denver sheep game. I don't want to cement that relationship any further than it already is.

 

[CarolinaBuff]

We already play the MWC in the Vegas Bowl and the New Mexico Bowl. The last thing the PAC-12 is to think more regionally.

Exactly.

 

[Buffellow85]

This is a smart move by Thompson

MWC is already partnering with C-USA, an agreement of sorts with the PAC would give the MWC additional exposure without having to spend a ton of money.

 

[Dark Bohner]

This is a smart move by Thompson

MWC is already partnering with C-USA, an agreement of sorts with the PAC would give the MWC additional exposure without having to spend a ton of money.

Smart move, if it actually happens. Can't blame him for trying. Of course, the catch is if any MWC schools actually become viable football powerhouses, the PAC 12 is likely to just take them anyway.

 

[CsquaredCC]

At the end of the day, everyone out west is angling for some type of guaranteed access to the California schools and more recently Oregon because of the exposure it brings. Outside of that, most of the PAC programs already schedule many of the MWC programs. Utah, Colorado, Washington State, Oregon State, Arizona State, Washington and Arizona all have future games with MWC opponents on the books already. Hell, two of Arizona's first three games in 2014 are against Vegas and Reno. A de-facto scheduling agreement is basically in place for many of the schools.

 

[sackman]

At the end of the day, everyone out west is angling for some type of guaranteed access to the California schools and more recently Oregon because of the exposure it brings. Outside of that, most of the PAC programs already schedule many of the MWC programs. Utah, Colorado, Washington State, Oregon State, Arizona State, Washington and Arizona all have future games with MWC opponents on the books already. Hell, two of Arizona's first three games in 2014 are against Vegas and Reno. A de-facto scheduling agreement is basically in place for many of the schools.

Which makes it all the more strange for Thompson to be requesting this. I'm not sure what he's playing at, frankly.

 

[leftybuff]

Which makes it all the more strange for Thompson to be requesting this. I'm not sure what he's playing at, frankly.

I think he is playing the "aw shucks, we're just little old MWC and the big boys won't play with us" angle that csu has used for years to milk CU's first game revenue in the Rocky Mtn. Slowdown.

 

[BehindEnemyLines]

Say no thanks and walk away. Absolutely nothing to gain when the mwc is offering the Pig Sticker bowl and the Wax-on PortaPotty bowl to be attended by 17K fans.

 

[NashBuff]

Somewhere nashbuff has a huge boner reading this thread.

Nice of you to remember. :lol:

It still would be great for CU to play the other I-25 schools besides CSU as long as we get to play a Big 8 school every year. That would be so much better than scheduling FCS schools. If we can't kick some MWC rears, we aren't a very good team anyway. If so, I believe that would be a sign we are competitive in the PAC.

 

[TimmyDUBs]

It's a smart move by their commish, but the regional argument is a good one, plus consistently playing them diminishes the perception of the PAC 12. We should be crossing the Mississippi and vice versa as often as possible

 

[GoBeers]

Not sure what the agreement would be from the Pac 12 side. Other than Boise St and SDSU (due to reputation) and Hawaii (due to the 13 game exception), the rest of the MWC schools are on generally 2 for 1 level for scheduling. The real problem being that some of the P12 schools don't even want the 2 MWC home games for one road game because it gets a little boring to see the same school twice. But because the P12 has a 9 game conference schedule, it becomes imperative to get those 2 for 1's to get a 6 or even 7 home game schedule - and it's even a bigger problem in the years when the Pac 12 schedule dictates only 4 home conference games. I would much rather see the FCS games go away, what a waste of energy for all involved, fans and players... but that would put even more pressure on athletic departments to schedule 2 for 1's to get their home games.

If the MWC is trying to get home and homes with the Pac, it's not going to happen. I don't know what else they can ask for?

It's really too bad this Big Ten scheduling alliance didn't happen - would have been a great way for BOTH conferences to control their programming (set OOC games to be on TV at strategic weekend, no haphazardly as it is now) and, if done correctly, ensure 5 home games out of 10 every year to get teams a better handle on having enough home games every year.

 

[ahoelsken]

Nice of you to remember. :lol:

It still would be great for CU to play the other I-25 schools besides CSU as long as we get to play a Big 8 school every year. That would be so much better than scheduling FCS schools. If we can't kick some MWC rears, we aren't a very good team anyway. If so, I believe that would be a sign we are competitive in the PAC.

This whole thing is dumb---We play CSU in Denver every year, and we've done home and homes with Fresno and Hawaii. We've got another h&h coming up with Hawaii (We scheduled these games for recruiting---when BC was still here and his Hawaiian pipeline was still a recruiting priority. Will MM and staff make Hawaii a priority? If not, these games probably need to be dropped.) Correct me if I'm wrong---but we have a 2 for 1 with San Jose State in 16-17.....which is cute with the MM storyline, but does that really benefit us to be playing people like that, and especially on the road? This is simple---We're the Pac 12. We're an AQ school. Playing the goats anywhere but Folsom doesn't do us any good, and we expound on this board how big a joke the Denver RMS is every Labor Day week. If Hawaii wants to play us at home, great! Let's do it. Playing them there doesn't do any good----If we win, we're supposed to. If we don't, its embarrassing. Same can be said with Fresno, SJSU, and every other member of that conference. I'd rather get whipped on the road by an AQ than play anybody out of that league.

 

[GoBeers]

This whole thing is dumb---We play CSU in Denver every year, and we've done home and homes with Fresno and Hawaii. We've got another h&h coming up with Hawaii (We scheduled these games for recruiting---when BC was still here and his Hawaiian pipeline was still a recruiting priority. Will MM and staff make Hawaii a priority? If not, these games probably need to be dropped.) Correct me if I'm wrong---but we have a 2 for 1 with San Jose State in 16-17.....which is cute with the MM storyline, but does that really benefit us to be playing people like that, and especially on the road? This is simple---We're the Pac 12.

http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa/big-12/colorado-buffaloes.php

Other than the CSU game and the @OSU game, CU is still doing a decent job getting 2 for 1's. Fresno was originally a 2 for 1, but 2011 was scrubbed due to the conference change. Not sure when the 2nd @ Folsom can be rescheduled but it should still be on the books. SJSU is a 2 for 1. UMass is a 2 for 1, and the 1 road game is going to be played at the Patriots stadium which is pretty cool. Playing @Hawaii means a team can schedule an extra game, so hawaii will not be playing any 2 for 1's for the time being. But the extra home game makes it a kind of 2 for 1 in terms of revenue for CU.

 

[Liver]

let's just get going on the uber-playoff system among the big boy conferences and then we can forget that conferences like the mwc ever existed. tv viewers already have done so.