TheMtn..the rise and fall « Thread Started on Apr 15, 2012, 2:29pm »
A tongue and cheek article in this morning's SLTRIB regarding theMTN, it's goals and objectives, and the obstacles it was unable to overcome, ("of all sad words of tongue or pen"....).
I know talk is cheap, but as I'm reading the article I'm thinking if Utah, TCU, Boise State and yes, even BYU had stayed, this would have been one formidable football conference. And theMTN could have had a totally different fate. (I don't include SDSU, as I previously posted, when given the opportunity, they contributed nothing from a football standpoint to the success of the MWC. And though they have shown marked improvement over the last two years, given their won-loss record against teams with winning and losing records, I would strongly argue they are still a work in progress).
I would also argue one of the biggest casualties of the money grab that has become college football is the MWC. Not just for what it could have been but what it may become.
But like a broken record, I'll agree it's about moving on.
Re: TheMtn..the rise and fall « Reply #1 on Apr 15, 2012, 2:37pm »
TCU and Utah would have left either way, but with a better TV contract (and boise should have been invited a couple years earlier) BYU, BSU, and SDSU would have stayed.
Re: TheMtn..the rise and fall « Reply #2 on Apr 15, 2012, 2:49pm »
I was a fan of the Mtn West before the teams left. It was a good conference in most sports. There were negative things (travel to hard to reach places) but those things were outweighed by the good. Unfortunately, with Utah, TCU, BYU gone and Boise leaving, the good weighs a lot less and the negatives of the conference are much heavier.
The mtn. itself was a great idea (as shown by the fact that other conferences have picked the idea up as well, including the Big10 almost right away). However, they didn't or couldn't get the deals in place to make it an actual nationwide network (fast enough anyway, the sat. tv deal came way too late) and got caught in the transition from standard def. to HD and again, wouldn't or couldn't upgrade to what became an industry standard for sports broadcast.
Re: TheMtn..the rise and fall « Reply #3 on Apr 15, 2012, 3:18pm »
I find it humerous how the SLC Tribune writes MWC articles when that state no longer has our conference affiliation. Same with the Deseret News which is pretty much controlled by BYU. Their articles are mainly about coulda, woulda and shouldas. The MWC is not a populous conference, but it did get national attention when Utah, TCU and BYU were members. That state will revert to being picturesque country, only. UU is showing signs of having difficulty competing in the Pac and nobody cares about BYU's self imposed importance as an indy. Their last bastion of state publicity is the MTN and when that goes off the air, poof!
Re: TheMtn..the rise and fall « Reply #4 on Apr 15, 2012, 4:11pm »
You are right about the SLC Trib. The thing is from my point of view the Mtn-TV. was always a Ybu-Ute station and the MWC was too. When Ybu and the Utes pulled the plug, I wondered where the TV was going to get it's advertising, I think we had one Sonic in the whole county.
The MWC too was SLC based as far as $$$ backing. When the conference was forming it was not for the likes of SDSU. It was for Yb-Ute's vision. The conference bent over backwards to keep them happy. Well now --- now MW got the shafted by YbUte and started to look around to see who would pick up the slack. Of course when they realized that they had been ignoring the other members in the league, they found little help. Now they are beginning to fade away.
There could be a saving grace ... change their bylaws and become a basketball conference similar to the BE. Keep football, but feature your BB and allow BB only members. But no they are going to go down with the ship. Bad Management!
Re: TheMtn..the rise and fall « Reply #5 on Apr 18, 2012, 12:28pm »
I had always believed that given time, and perseverance that the MTN would eventually cover most of the Western US, or at least all the states which had MW teams. I liked their network, and figured that as the MWC grew in stature so would the MTN network. Especially if the good teams remained, and we got AQ status from the BCS.
It is most unfortunate, but at least we can say one thing. We were part of a conference the put together the first all conference only TV network for their conference. No one else can claim that!
Re: TheMtn..the rise and fall « Reply #6 on Apr 18, 2012, 12:39pm »
I'm on the fence about CSU but I agree with JYP that now that we're leaving them, I have no interest in ever being in the same conference with the Butthurt U 1&2 again. (Aka Wyoming and UNM.) John doesn't mention it but I will miss playing UNLV in hoops and if they ever actually build the stadium they've been talking about for a decade, I'd include them as the "next best available team" along with Cal State Fresno.
Houston and SMU aren't leaving the Big East. There's no incentive for them to leave.
They don't have to leave the Big "East" and no one said they should. I would propose a name change for this league, though. This is now (and will be more so in the future) "Conference USA."
"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet..." Romeo And Juliet, II, ii, 47-48
Re: TheMtn..the rise and fall « Reply #9 on Apr 19, 2012, 11:09am »
I think the Big East adventure is going to be really short term a couple of years. The BCS will just lock them out and is quite likely to end up a basketball only conference. I don't know what marketthere is is for a football conference that has teams withut little or no traditional rivalries with each other.It's it certainly was aetter gamble than staying in the mountain west. My guess in a long run is that SMU, Houston Boise State and San Diego State and that being the core of a new conference.
I think it's a 50% chance that we never see the big east because the television contract will be to poor. As far as the quality of our football team is concerned we have had basically 2 1/2 years of decent recruting. I would say where maybe about 50 of or so encounter among division one teams.
I think get one of the quarterbacks works out we have plenty of talent on offense for the future. I just don't see more than a handful of players on defense that can take you to our top 25 ranking. I also think this year is the most important year and has tech football history. Our pathetic performance against Sun Belt Rajun Cajuns exposed us as did the Wyoming Loss as ready for prime time. That being said if we had a 60% field goal kicker and Hillman and of closed shop early we woul tod have won those two games and still be a the worst ten win team n the country. This may seem silly under the circumstances but anything less than a spectacular year with the schedule we have exposes us again as an average team with a woefully weak schedule. This does not bode well for a performance in the Big East and will certainly crush our chances for recruiting top athletes particularily defense.
I think it's a 50% chance that we never see because the television contract will be to poor.
Not sure I agree here - think we'll get a hell of a lot more than we do now - not that it will be great, but it will be much better than nothing (what we get now).
That being said if we had a 60% field goal kicker and Hillman and of closed shop early we woul tod have won those two games and still be a the worst ten win team n the country.
I'm not sure if you're saying at the worst we would've been a ten win team, or the worst 10 win team in the country?
If it's the latter I'll take being the "worst" 10 win team in the country as it's gotta be better than the best nine win team in the country, right? Or eight? or seven?
That being said if we had a 60% field goal kicker and Hillman and of closed shop early we woul tod have won those two games and still be a the worst ten win team n the country.
I'm not sure if you're saying at the worst we would've been a ten win team, or the worst 10 win team in the country?
If it's the latter I'll take being the "worst" 10 win team in the country as it's gotta be better than the best nine win team in the country, right? Or eight? or seven?
The latter and I would have gladly accepted the epithet.
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/home.png "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/help.png "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/search.png "[Search]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/login.png "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://images.proboards.com/new/menu/register.png "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/search2.png "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/print.png "[Print]")
Author
Logged![[avatar]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/Xolotl_1.jpg "[avatar]")
