|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Feb 13, 2024 14:22:18 GMT -8
Colorado State is one of the most sought-after teams in the Mountain West. San Diego State is first. Boise, Colorado State, Fresno, and UNLV are generally second through fifth in some order, depending on what you focus on. Colorado State is the best academic school in the Mountain West, and, hopefully, that still means something. Air Force or New Mexico are probably the second-best academic universities in the Mountain West in some order. I personally am a big fan of adding New Mexico, if the money works out. I like Utah State, the State of Utah is gorgeous. The Wasatch Mountains are visually stunning. I like the area. Still, unless Utah State can compete with BYU and Utah for eyeballs, I am not sure that the numbers work out. All told, I would rather add all 10 Mountain West teams to make a 14+ team conference. I just do not know that that is actually in the reformulated Pac-12's best interest. We'll see. Hey Wilky, no way on this one. I promise you an AF degree carries exponentially more weight (in general, there may a field or 2 nod to CSU) than a CSU degree. That's not a knock on CSU. (Yes, I have a cadet there and may have a little pride/skin in the game) I was debating about bringing up Air Force, because they really are an orange to the other 11 universities' apples. Air Force is one of the most prestigious and difficult to get into schools in the country. On the other hand, they are really not a research university in the strictest sense of the word and are more like a glorified and large uber-prestigious four-year trade school. If you want to go to a school in a course that the Air Force offers, there are only a handful (realistically only one or two) of schools that are even comparable. If you are looking for a broad-based education or even something that is slightly off of what Air Force offers, you should probably go elsewhere. If you are a square peg, you will fit in nicely with one of the square holes. If you are a round peg, though............ Both the most prestigious and least prestigious university in the Mountain West at the same time. One of my best friends is an Air Force graduate, hyper-successful. But I have also hung out with a couple of washouts, who are not. |
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Feb 13, 2024 14:30:22 GMT -8
It seems odd to me that the shrewd lawyers who brought down the traitorous ten would allow us to get handcuffed into such a deal. Some of the greatest contract attorneys make awful litigators. And some of the greatest litigators make awful contract attorneys. Oversimplifying but contract attorneys have to build something beautiful for the clients' benefit that will stand the test of time. And, if that fails, the litigators come in to knock it down at the end. Like talking about sprinters making good distance runners and vice versa. Lots of different areas and facets of law. If we did get bad advice from the contract attorneys, hopefully, the litigators that we hired for the Pullman action can come back in to knock it down again, like they did last time. Plus... it only matters IF that is the route taken. The Pac2 had zero leverage in this particular matter. The MWC and their leadership is not letting their conference be destroyed. It's pretty simple, if you have no better option we'll (MWC) gladly help you rebuild the Pac12/14. But, initially it's all or nothing. As for what the Pac2 wants... I've seen mixed messages. Early in it was priority one to rebuild the Pac12. Maybe it still is and the MWC merge to do so isn't the preferred option?? But, under a very short timeline it maybe the only one. The ACC issue will drag on even if FSU wins and other than Cal & Stanford there is no other viable options there. The Pac2 isn't going to go with east coast travel. It undermines everything they are trying to do. I'm betting the latest "Baker" proposal and it's offshoots will be more of a factor on the Pac2 than the ACC. Either way the Pac2 really needs something solidified by the summer of '25. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Feb 13, 2024 14:37:56 GMT -8
Some of the greatest contract attorneys make awful litigators. And some of the greatest litigators make awful contract attorneys. Oversimplifying but contract attorneys have to build something beautiful for the clients' benefit that will stand the test of time. And, if that fails, the litigators come in to knock it down at the end. Like talking about sprinters making good distance runners and vice versa. Lots of different areas and facets of law. If we did get bad advice from the contract attorneys, hopefully, the litigators that we hired for the Pullman action can come back in to knock it down again, like they did last time. Plus... it only matters IF that is the route taken. The Pac2 had zero leverage in this particular matter. The MWC and their leadership is not letting their conference be destroyed. It's pretty simple, if you have no better option we'll (MWC) gladly help you rebuild the Pac12/14. But, initially it's all or nothing. As for what the Pac2 wants... I've seen mixed messages. Early in it was priority one to rebuild the Pac12. Maybe it still is and the MWC merge to do so isn't the preferred option?? But, under a very short timeline it maybe the only one. The ACC issue will drag on even if FSU wins and other than Cal & Stanford there is no other viable options there. The Pac2 isn't going to go with east coast travel. It undermines everything they are trying to do. I'm betting the latest "Baker" proposal and it's offshoots will be more of a factor on the Pac2 than the ACC. Either way the Pac2 really needs something solidified by the summer of '25. There is a hearing in North Carolina in the ACC lawsuit on March 22nd. Expect to know something more shortly thereafter. Florida State had to amend their Complaint in the Florida lawsuit in January, which will slow everything down in that case. If the right people put pressure on the right people, though, you could still see that case decided by April. |
|
|
|
Post by beavs6 on Feb 13, 2024 15:51:32 GMT -8
Hey Wilky, no way on this one. I promise you an AF degree carries exponentially more weight (in general, there may a field or 2 nod to CSU) than a CSU degree. That's not a knock on CSU. (Yes, I have a cadet there and may have a little pride/skin in the game) I was debating about bringing up Air Force, because they really are an orange to the other 11 universities' apples. Air Force is one of the most prestigious and difficult to get into schools in the country. On the other hand, they are really not a research university in the strictest sense of the word and are more like a glorified and large uber-prestigious four-year trade school. If you want to go to a school in a course that the Air Force offers, there are only a handful (realistically only one or two) of schools that are even comparable. If you are looking for a broad-based education or even something that is slightly off of what Air Force offers, you should probably go elsewhere. If you are a square peg, you will fit in nicely with one of the square holes. If you are a round peg, though............ Both the most prestigious and least prestigious university in the Mountain West at the same time. One of my best friends is an Air Force graduate, hyper-successful. But I have also hung out with a couple of washouts, who are not. Oh, there are a LOT of NARPs there.(As my kid references them)---Non-Athletic Regular People. I would guess degree comparisons vs CSU (and even our beloved OSU) would be in USAFA's favor. Engineering (at least Aeronautical, Civil, Mechanical, Electrical), Mathematics, Business, Physics. The hitch is, there are no Doctorate programs. Super in-demand undergrad programs graduates though. I've never heard USAFA and "least prestigious" used in the same sentence before. You are probably correct, if you are looking at a major not offered by the school, it could be "least prestigious". Wouldn't that just be a NA, not offered, or not ranked? As far a Research. The Academy is "owned" by the Federal Government. No research grants applied for. ALL research is on behalf of the Feds. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Feb 13, 2024 16:03:18 GMT -8
I was debating about bringing up Air Force, because they really are an orange to the other 11 universities' apples. Air Force is one of the most prestigious and difficult to get into schools in the country. On the other hand, they are really not a research university in the strictest sense of the word and are more like a glorified and large uber-prestigious four-year trade school. If you want to go to a school in a course that the Air Force offers, there are only a handful (realistically only one or two) of schools that are even comparable. If you are looking for a broad-based education or even something that is slightly off of what Air Force offers, you should probably go elsewhere. If you are a square peg, you will fit in nicely with one of the square holes. If you are a round peg, though............ Both the most prestigious and least prestigious university in the Mountain West at the same time. One of my best friends is an Air Force graduate, hyper-successful. But I have also hung out with a couple of washouts, who are not. Oh, there are a LOT of NARPs there.(As my kid references them)---Non-Athletic Regular People. I would guess degree comparisons vs CSU (and even our beloved OSU) would be in USAFA's favor. Engineering (at least Aeronautical, Civil, Mechanical, Electrical), Mathematics, Business, Physics. The hitch is, there are no Doctorate programs. Super in-demand undergrad programs graduates though. I've never heard USAFA and "least prestigious" used in the same sentence before. You are probably correct, if you are looking at a major not offered by the school, it could be "least prestigious". Wouldn't that just be a NA, not offered, or not ranked? As far a Research. The Academy is "owned" by the Federal Government. No research grants applied for. ALL research is on behalf of the Feds. I may be mis-conveying what I am attempting to convey. Yes, Air Force is hyper-prestigious in the fields that they offer. But they are not nearly as broad-based as other comparable universities. And, as you point out, you cannot get doctorates in any field at the Academy. The analogy that I used above is probably imperfect, but I will attempt to restate, if you are a peg, which fits into one of the Air Force's holes, there are few schools better than Air Force. But a lot (most?) people (pegs) do not fit in one of the Air Force's holes. And that's the set-up for the lamest flame ever, so I expect fireworks, guys! |
|
|
|
Post by grayman on Feb 13, 2024 16:44:43 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by irimi on Feb 13, 2024 22:11:26 GMT -8
That quote is wimpy. Hope he gets someone else to do the talking. |
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Feb 14, 2024 9:55:50 GMT -8
Oh, there are a LOT of NARPs there.(As my kid references them)---Non-Athletic Regular People. I would guess degree comparisons vs CSU (and even our beloved OSU) would be in USAFA's favor. Engineering (at least Aeronautical, Civil, Mechanical, Electrical), Mathematics, Business, Physics. The hitch is, there are no Doctorate programs. Super in-demand undergrad programs graduates though. I've never heard USAFA and "least prestigious" used in the same sentence before. You are probably correct, if you are looking at a major not offered by the school, it could be "least prestigious". Wouldn't that just be a NA, not offered, or not ranked? As far a Research. The Academy is "owned" by the Federal Government. No research grants applied for. ALL research is on behalf of the Feds. I may be mis-conveying what I am attempting to convey. Yes, Air Force is hyper-prestigious in the fields that they offer. But they are not nearly as broad-based as other comparable universities. And, as you point out, you cannot get doctorates in any field at the Academy. The analogy that I used above is probably imperfect, but I will attempt to restate, if you are a peg, which fits into one of the Air Force's holes, there are few schools better than Air Force. But a lot (most?) people (pegs) do not fit in one of the Air Force's holes. And that's the set-up for the lamest flame ever, so I expect fireworks, guys! Spot on. Army and Navy are great engineering schools as well. But they are not a fit for everyone. And the 5-and-fly rate after graduation is now over 60%; military careers are very hard on families and many corporations like to hire service academy graduates and their good old boy network is very strong. I have a nephew who went to the Coast Guard Academy, and made a career of it. He still will get out before he's 50 and probably have a nice job waiting for him. |
|
|
|
Post by highincascadia on Feb 15, 2024 23:46:49 GMT -8
I think the older poster is right about waiting out the ACC/FSU drama. See where the chips lie then. But I would consider it a complete downgrade if we were paired up with Utah State/Colorado State/New Mexico. I really love the MWC, but at that point we might as well try to run with the NDSUs of the world. I'm not trying to pick a fight. I'm genuinely trying to understand your point of view, and I understand that moving from the old P5 PAC-12 to a merged PAC-2 / MWC doesn't just seem like a downgrade, it is a downgrade, but is there a particular reason you single out those three schools? From a MWC insider's perspective, those three are very different, in multiple ways. Thinking back on it, I’m not sure. I had a couple of buddies go to USU and one play football there. I singled out USU because I feel as though the state of Utah cannot effectively support three Power five schools. I’m a loyal Oregonian and Cascadian and I pettily bawk at the idea of Utah having more P5 schools than Washington. I really believe Idaho deserves a P5 team either in BSU or UoI. But at the end of the day I’m just talking out of my ass. |
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Feb 16, 2024 7:39:18 GMT -8
"Deserve" has nothing to do with it; "effectively support" does. And there are no indications that Utah can't support three P5 FBS schools, because they all seem to be doing pretty well. They also each serve different constituencies.
|
|
bvrbred
Freshman
Posts: 579 
Member is Online
|
Post by bvrbred on Feb 16, 2024 8:14:26 GMT -8
I think the older poster is right about waiting out the ACC/FSU drama. See where the chips lie then. But I would consider it a complete downgrade if we were paired up with Utah State/Colorado State/New Mexico. I really love the MWC, but at that point we might as well try to run with the NDSUs of the world. I'm not trying to pick a fight. I'm genuinely trying to understand your point of view, and I understand that moving from the old P5 PAC-12 to a merged PAC-2 / MWC doesn't just seem like a downgrade, it is a downgrade, but is there a particular reason you single out those three schools? From a MWC insider's perspective, those three are very different, in multiple ways. You're going to get different opinions from different posters on this. I'll offer my opinion although others will differ: 1. New Mexico. From a football conference perspective they are an easy out. They haven't been good at footbal in recent memory, they play in a facility that looks like mid 20th century cheap and their media market is not big enough to outweigh those other two problems. 2. Utah State. They have had better football teams than the other two which goes a long way for me. They have to share a media market with two other programs, both nationally prominent. That they have been able to win in spite of that bears notice. Their stadium isn't great but is certainly an upgrade over New Mexico's. 3. Colo State. They haven't been good at football lately. They have a nice new stadium and proximity to the Denver media market which is much larger than Salt Lake's. Some posters like that fact that it is an excellent academic institution but I really don't care about that. I have seen Oregon State criticized too much for it (undeservedly IMO). As between those three my choice would be Utah State because my main concern is the level of play for the conference as a whole. If Barnes is serious about building this into a Power 5 level conference we are going to need the best teams we can get. IMO our niche as a conferene needs to be a conference of underdogs that can overperform on the field. Chris Petersen Boise State and Pat Hill Fresno State for example. What else have we got? Population bases? Storied football history? Media glamour? Talking clown hype? |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Feb 16, 2024 13:19:38 GMT -8
I'm not trying to pick a fight. I'm genuinely trying to understand your point of view, and I understand that moving from the old P5 PAC-12 to a merged PAC-2 / MWC doesn't just seem like a downgrade, it is a downgrade, but is there a particular reason you single out those three schools? From a MWC insider's perspective, those three are very different, in multiple ways. You're going to get different opinions from different posters on this. I'll offer my opinion although others will differ: 1. New Mexico. From a football conference perspective they are an easy out. They haven't been good at footbal in recent memory, they play in a facility that looks like mid 20th century cheap and their media market is not big enough to outweigh those other two problems. 2. Utah State. They have had better football teams than the other two which goes a long way for me. They have to share a media market with two other programs, both nationally prominent. That they have been able to win in spite of that bears notice. Their stadium isn't great but is certainly an upgrade over New Mexico's. 3. Colo State. They haven't been good at football lately. They have a nice new stadium and proximity to the Denver media market which is much larger than Salt Lake's. Some posters like that fact that it is an excellent academic institution but I really don't care about that. I have seen Oregon State criticized too much for it (undeservedly IMO). As between those three my choice would be Utah State because my main concern is the level of play for the conference as a whole. If Barnes is serious about building this into a Power 5 level conference we are going to need the best teams we can get. IMO our niche as a conference needs to be a conference of underdogs that can overperform on the field. Chris Petersen Boise State and Pat Hill Fresno State for example. What else have we got? Population bases? Storied football history? Media glamour? Talking clown hype? New Mexico probably brings the New Mexico Bowl, which is not nothing. Colorado State is the most-watched of the three teams mentioned, and it is not even close, almost an order of magnitude more people watch Colorado State than watch New Mexico. And more than a 1/3 more people watched New Mexico as watched Utah State. Of teams West of San Marcos, Utah State was the third least-viewed of any FBS university, only ahead of Hawai'i and Nevada. Level of play is almost irrelevant, when compared to market share. You pick teams more for potential than past success or lack thereof. |
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on Feb 16, 2024 17:27:13 GMT -8
You're going to get different opinions from different posters on this. I'll offer my opinion although others will differ: 1. New Mexico. From a football conference perspective they are an easy out. They haven't been good at footbal in recent memory, they play in a facility that looks like mid 20th century cheap and their media market is not big enough to outweigh those other two problems. 2. Utah State. They have had better football teams than the other two which goes a long way for me. They have to share a media market with two other programs, both nationally prominent. That they have been able to win in spite of that bears notice. Their stadium isn't great but is certainly an upgrade over New Mexico's. 3. Colo State. They haven't been good at football lately. They have a nice new stadium and proximity to the Denver media market which is much larger than Salt Lake's. Some posters like that fact that it is an excellent academic institution but I really don't care about that. I have seen Oregon State criticized too much for it (undeservedly IMO). As between those three my choice would be Utah State because my main concern is the level of play for the conference as a whole. If Barnes is serious about building this into a Power 5 level conference we are going to need the best teams we can get. IMO our niche as a conference needs to be a conference of underdogs that can overperform on the field. Chris Petersen Boise State and Pat Hill Fresno State for example. What else have we got? Population bases? Storied football history? Media glamour? Talking clown hype? New Mexico probably brings the New Mexico Bowl, which is not nothing. Colorado State is the most-watched of the three teams mentioned, and it is not even close, almost an order of magnitude more people watch Colorado State than watch New Mexico. And more than a 1/3 more people watched New Mexico as watched Utah State. Of teams West of San Marcos, Utah State was the third least-viewed of any FBS university, only ahead of Hawai'i and Nevada. Level of play is almost irrelevant, when compared to market share. You pick teams more for potential than past success or lack thereof. The New Mexico Bowl? Lol….. That’s nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Feb 16, 2024 20:22:31 GMT -8
New Mexico probably brings the New Mexico Bowl, which is not nothing. Colorado State is the most-watched of the three teams mentioned, and it is not even close, almost an order of magnitude more people watch Colorado State than watch New Mexico. And more than a 1/3 more people watched New Mexico as watched Utah State. Of teams West of San Marcos, Utah State was the third least-viewed of any FBS university, only ahead of Hawai'i and Nevada. Level of play is almost irrelevant, when compared to market share. You pick teams more for potential than past success or lack thereof. The New Mexico Bowl? Lol….. That’s nothing. All these years, Beaver fans have turned up their nose at the Sun and LA Bowls. Soon, that may be a best case scenario, New Mexico Bowl as a fallback. There is an actual nothing, which often feels like what we deserve.............. |
|
bvrbred
Freshman
Posts: 579
Member is Online
|
Post by bvrbred on Feb 17, 2024 7:49:05 GMT -8
You're going to get different opinions from different posters on this. I'll offer my opinion although others will differ: 1. New Mexico. From a football conference perspective they are an easy out. They haven't been good at footbal in recent memory, they play in a facility that looks like mid 20th century cheap and their media market is not big enough to outweigh those other two problems. 2. Utah State. They have had better football teams than the other two which goes a long way for me. They have to share a media market with two other programs, both nationally prominent. That they have been able to win in spite of that bears notice. Their stadium isn't great but is certainly an upgrade over New Mexico's. 3. Colo State. They haven't been good at football lately. They have a nice new stadium and proximity to the Denver media market which is much larger than Salt Lake's. Some posters like that fact that it is an excellent academic institution but I really don't care about that. I have seen Oregon State criticized too much for it (undeservedly IMO). As between those three my choice would be Utah State because my main concern is the level of play for the conference as a whole. If Barnes is serious about building this into a Power 5 level conference we are going to need the best teams we can get. IMO our niche as a conference needs to be a conference of underdogs that can overperform on the field. Chris Petersen Boise State and Pat Hill Fresno State for example. What else have we got? Population bases? Storied football history? Media glamour? Talking clown hype? New Mexico probably brings the New Mexico Bowl, which is not nothing. Colorado State is the most-watched of the three teams mentioned, and it is not even close, almost an order of magnitude more people watch Colorado State than watch New Mexico. And more than a 1/3 more people watched New Mexico as watched Utah State. Of teams West of San Marcos, Utah State was the third least-viewed of any FBS university, only ahead of Hawai'i and Nevada. Level of play is almost irrelevant, when compared to market share. You pick teams more for potential than past success or lack thereof.Colo State? Potential? On what basis? Their last good team was 10 years ago, the year Dave Baldwin was OC. Since then there has been a steady slide from mediocrity into less than mediocrity: 7-6, 7-6, 7-6, 3-9, 4-8, 1-3, 3-9, 3-9, 5-7. If airplay is supposed to enable success on the field there has been plenty of time for that to happen. And it hasn't. And they've been playing in the MWC. The idea of Barnes better be to build a better conference than the existing MWC. Otherwise all this talk about staying "Power 5" is a lot of hot air. Building a conference based on market share, rather than ability to play the game, is a sure path to football irrelevance. And, in that regard, we're on shaky ground anwyway. The initial question was to distinguish between Colo State, Utah State, and New Mexico. My choice, of those three, is Utah State for the simple reason that they can play football. But that choice assumes we have to take one of them. I'm not that excited about Utah State. My ideal choice would be to build an 8 team conference of the best teams we can find. If that means we end up with Utah State, then so be it. |
|
