Page 1 of 1
ESPN Reports
Posted:
Thu Jul 31, 2003 12:07 pmby geephunk
Did anyone see the quick snippet last night (or this morning) on sportscenter regarding the expansion of the MWC. They mentioned that the MWC was looking to possibly include Fresno State, Boise State, Hawaii, Nevada, TCU, and Tulane in the new expanded conference.
Why not SMU? My heart dropped when they did not mention us. It really irks me that Tulane can conduct a study earlier in the year to determine whether or not to continue their football program but then 2 months later, their name is kicked around with expanding into the MWC. Why not capitalize on SMU and the Dallas Market? Why aren't we even mentioned?
If anyone has any explanations, please let me know!
Re: ESPN Reports
Posted:
Thu Jul 31, 2003 12:52 pmby Hoop Fan
First of all, I think this report was a retread of an article in the San Diego paper. Sounds like a writer just pulled that out of his arse. DFW barely makes sense for the MWC much less New Orleans. In spite of that though, I think the reason people mention Tulane is they at least won a bowl game last year. They have been competitive for several years now and well,SMU hasn't. Gotta win to get noticed and respected.
Re: ESPN Reports
Posted:
Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:07 pmby Johnny Rock
The above-mentioned scenerio does not make sense unless the newly formed MWC would be considered as a BCS conference. Correct me if I am wrong, but the teams that leave their respective conferences would have to pay exit fees and theyt also would have to pay entry fees to the MWC. The MWC would be the same conference as the WAC or C-USA with just different teams. The MWC would still have high travel costs and rivalry problems.
Re: ESPN Reports
Posted:
Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:35 pmby Southland
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by geephunk:
<B>Did anyone see the quick snippet last night (or this morning) on sportscenter regarding the expansion of the MWC. They mentioned that the MWC was looking to possibly include Fresno State, Boise State, Hawaii, Nevada, TCU, and Tulane in the new expanded conference.
Why not SMU? My heart dropped when they did not mention us. It really irks me that Tulane can conduct a study earlier in the year to determine whether or not to continue their football program but then 2 months later, their name is kicked around with expanding into the MWC. Why not capitalize on SMU and the Dallas Market? Why aren't we even mentioned?
If anyone has any explanations, please let me know!</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Three days ago the MWC Commissioner Craig Thompson said the MWC will not expand east.
Re: ESPN Reports
Posted:
Thu Jul 31, 2003 7:07 pmby Sam I Am
The speculations about conferecne realignments are interesting but non-productive. The BE has to make their moves before anything else will happen. The non-BCS wannabes are wasting their time if they think shuffling the chairs on the deck of the Titantic is going to help them stay afloat.