What Is The Future Of The Mountain West?

With the Pac-12 announcing that they'll be taking Boise State, Colorado State, Fresno State and San Diego State away from the Mountain West, of course speculation is about who the Pac-12 is coming for next. After all, the league needs to add at least two more members in order to be compliant to the NCAA as a conference in 2026.

Another question looming is the status of the Mountain West Conference. To be frank, it is on edge. 

Let's recap who remains in the Mountain West: Air Force, Nevada, New Mexico, San Jose State, UNLV, Utah State, Wyoming and Hawaii (football member only).

COULD MORE SCHOOLS LEAVE

Yes. As I already mentioned, the Pac-12 needs to add two more schools and there is a chance they could come from the Mountain West. There is a thought that if the Pac-12 truly wanted more MW schools than they would've already been brought over in the initial news last week, but that may just be the first step in a series of steps for the Pac-12 to resurrect their conference.

UNLV remains, likely, the most attractive candidate for the Pac-12. They are a football program on the rise, they have basketball history, and bring in a city that is highly desirable to the old Pac-12 and whatever the new version looks like. One problem is that Nevada could be tied to UNLV and the Wolf Pack aren't that wanted. Still, that could be a play the Pac-12 is forced to make.

Outside of the Rebels, Air Force and Wyoming may be the only schools truly interesting to the Pac-12.

WAIT, HOW DID WE GET HERE ANYWAY?

Here is the key to the whole thing. When the Pac-12 imploded and became just a two-team league (Oregon State, Washington State), those schools tried desperately to hang on to the value of the Pac-12. That not only means the name and the history, but the financial advantages left behind from the departing members (such as units earned from NCAA tournament successes, for example). They got that, which gave them financial flexibility to make some moves.

Oregon State and Washington State went into an agreement with the West Coast Conference to become affiliate members in basketball and a scheduling agreement with the Mountain West in football. Basically the MW will play seven conference games with each of the schools playing either Oregon State or Washington State once. To many, this seemed like the the beginnings of some sort of relationship between the two leagues, but what would that be?

Would the Pac-12 try to take MW schools? Would the MW take the Pac-12 schools? Would there be some sort of merger between the two leagues in order to consolidate their advantages? 

Earlier this month, the MW announced that they weren't willing to extend that football scheduling partnership for 2025. Soon after, the Pac-12 struck with the news of taking four MW schools. With the money the Pac-12 has built up, they are willing to help pay those school's exit fees as well as pay the MW for "poaching" the schools away (which was also part of the agreement between the two leagues). That poaching clause made the MW feel comfortable that the Pac-12 couldn't afford to take their schools nor would the school feel it was in the financial interests to leave the MW. What the Pac-12 was able to do with their war chest changed matters ... as well as the thinking that there is a broadcast deal out there for them that's worth more than what the MW has. 

This miscalculation by the MW could lead to their demise. For one, they had 33% of their members just leave for a conference that was hanging on by a thread. Second off, those members happen to be the most attractive schools to broadcasters and will not be replaced easily -- if at all. Not only does it look like the Pac-12 is able to grab a broadcast deal better than what the MW has now, it will also drastically lower the MW's deal when it comes up in a couple of years. 

WHAT DO THE CURRENT EIGHT MEMBERS DO?

This is tough. Of course all eight would love to receive their own invites from the Pac-12, but as we've pointed out that likely won't be the case. Maybe one or two schools can nab one, but the others will have to figure out what's next. The Mountain West will essentially be where the Pac-12 has been for the last year or so, except they lack the branding that the Pac-12 owns. 

Those schools could look to leave themselves. Of course, that wouldn't happen immediately since the same exit fees the four departing schools are having to deal with would apply to the other schools. If those schools left, they'd be leaving for Conference USA, the American Athletic Conference or Sun Belt (the MAC will likely be out of the equation).

Obviously the American would be the most attractive option, that league wouldn't want all the MW's inventory. Air Force would be interesting since Army and Navy already play football in the AAC. Right now, North Texas, UTSA and Tulsa are the most western of the current AAC schools so they could possibly be interested in Wyoming or UNLV if either of them were available. Of course, the AAC could see a few of its teams get poached by the Pac-12 (Memphis and Tulane seem to be mentioned the most) and could feel that stacking several MW teams is their best way of building back up.

The Sun Belt would be a stretch since it really doesn't fit with their strategy. Still, it could be an option.

Conference USA may be the best ... albeit sad ... bet. CUSA already has New Mexico State and UTEP, so adding any or all of the MW is very doable. That may not be the most desirable option, but if these schools feel desperate then it could be the straw that breaks the MW's back. Right now, the CUSA is seen as the lowest rung of the FBS conferences, so any MW school leaving for it would basically mean the MW is dead.

COULD THE MOUNTAIN WEST REBUILD?

Certainly. How, is the tricky question. The Mountain West can feel that they have a good enough brand that they can take CUSA schools away. As I mentioned earlier, UTEP and New Mexico State would be good options. So could Texas State, Sam Houston and Louisiana Tech. I'd doubt that any Sun Belt or AAC teams would want to leave the top two Group of 5 leagues for a western league that's gasping for air, so poaching Conference USA would be the more likely option.

The biggest move that the Mountain West could make is looking at several FCS schools to make the jump to FBS. Could it convince Idaho to give FBS a shot again? Maybe Montana and Montana State (they'd be a package deal)? Could North Dakota State and South Dakota State be willing to make the move from dominant FCS programs to the FBS? James Madison and Appalachian State have done so in recent years. If those two come, would North Dakota and South Dakota have to come with them? 

WHAT WOULD BE THE KINDA BEST CASE SCENARIO FOR THE MOUNTAIN WEST?

So let's go ahead and say that the Pac-12 takes UNLV away from the MW ... and that's it. So we are left with Air Force, Nevada, New Mexico, San Jose State, Utah State, Wyoming and Hawaii. The best case scenario would be to get North Dakota State and South Dakota State to jump from FCS. Maybe add UTEP and New Mexico State from Conference USA. That puts the Mountain West as an 11-team football conference that stays in the geographic footprint but adds the Dakotas. It still allows for growth (maybe Idaho or Sacramento State) if the Pac-12 took someone in addition to UNLV. 

WHAT IS THE WORST CASE SCENARIO? 

Basically the conference dies. We've seen buzzards fly around the Big 12 and Pac-12 over the last several years, but both conferences found ways to persevere. Could the Mountain West do the same? Maybe, but both the Big 12 and Pac-12 have assets that the MW just doesn't have which makes it less likely to be able to pull off that kind of resurrection. If the MW is deemed to forgone to save (similar to what happened to the Pac-12 last year), it really may not survive. The geography of the Mountain West makes it difficult to pull in members, which is why the MW and Pac-12 relationship so interesting. They both were looking at possibly ending the other one since they have some shared space. 

When the MW's broadcast deals are up, the numbers for a new deal might look ugly ... or at least less attractive than what Conference USA or someone else may be able to offer. Each school has different needs (hello, Hawaii) so there is no blanket answer for the remaining eight schools. 

ACC ... Go Ahead And Expand Again

Look, I wish things could go back to the way they used to be. My ACC was a nice, fit nine-team alliance when Florida State was added in the early 1990s. The league felt together and everyone played each other twice. I loved those days.

But that's all over and I've accepted that for quite some time. The ACC pulled Miami, Boston College and Virginia Tech from the Big East in the early 2000s; yanked Syracuse, Pitt, Notre Dame and Louisville in the mid-2010s; and became a landing spot for California, Stanford and SMU this year (oh, and they lost Maryland along the way). This will never be that ACC we grew up with ever again. The quicker we understand that it isn't coming back, the quicker we can accept reality and move on.

None of this makes sense anymore, so let's think outside the box. I did so three years ago when I begged the ACC to make a strong move and go after the Pac-12's schools. At the time, I felt the ACC should go grab Oregon, Cal, Stanford, USC and UCLA from the Pac-12 and make a 20 team conference. All of those schools are outstanding academically, which fits what the ACC is about, and it powers up the league with some really solid programs and gets the ACC onto the west coast (namely, LA). It also might .... might ... compel Notre Dame to become a full-time member. I mean, they were already playing five ACC games a season, and adding Stanford and USC (two schools they play each year) to the conference means that the Irish would be playing seven ACC opponents every year. Why not just let them play seven league games to the rest of the members' eight and enjoy all that comes with have Notre Dame as a football member?

At the time, people laughed that the ACC should have no business having members on the Pacific Ocean. "That's silly!" And why would they feel compelled to leave a conference they've been a part of for over 100 years??? Ridiculous!

Fast forward to now and Oregon, USC, UCLA (and Washington) all left the Pac-12 for the Big Ten. Oh, and the ACC now has Stanford and Cal as members. See? I was right, yet the ACC sat back and let everyone cut in front of them first. This could be a fatal move for the league.

My 2024 proposal is kind of the same. We know now that geography doesn't matter. We know the ACC is being held together by its Grant of Rights. We know that tradition "ACC schools" aren't really a thing anymore. So let's swing for the fences. Let's add two more schools.

UConn and Gonzaga.

Both schools have already been looking around, and both notably looked to get into the Big 12. Whatever the reason that hasn't happened yet isn't as important as the fact that both UConn and Gonzaga are willing to jump to a new opportunity. 

Let's start with UConn. Since the Big East reconfigured in the mid-2010s (due, in large part, to the ACC raiding the league), UConn has struggled to find a home. The basketball program helped form the AAC before finally getting back to the Big East a few years ago. The football program has been kicked around as an independent. So why not send them an invite to join the ACC? UConn joining North Carolina, Louisville and Duke in a basketball league? Um, yes, please! So what if they suck in football -- so does Cal and Stanford and we let them in! While it seems like sacrilege for UConn to want to leave the Big East, remember a couple points:

1. They have literally been talking to the Big 12 about possibly joining.

2. The Big East that they are in now is not the Big East they were a part of during the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. UConn was never rivals with Xavier, Butler or Creighton.  I mean, being rivals with Syracuse, Pitt and Boston College again must sound alright. 

3. The football program has nowhere to really go

Point is that if the ACC offered an invite to UConn, they'd strongly consider it. They'd have rivals near them in both football and basketball and would be able to get on the field with some big names. If UConn was considering the Big 12 (their nearest opponents would be West Virginia and Cincinnati) then why not consider the ACC?

Which brings me to Gonzaga. I know it sounds absolutely ridiculous ... but so did what I said three years ago and now that's way more plausible. Gonzaga doesn't have football -- so what? Notre Dame isn't a football member either and we're making it work. Imagine having North Carolina, Duke, Louisville, UConn and Gonzaga in the same hoops league? It is even more intriguing since the ACC now has a western wing to the conference which makes Gonzaga not living on an island out there. With Cal and Stanford now members, Gonzaga has some partners to play alongside. Playing ACC competition heading into the NCAA tournament will definitely have them more ready to perform in March and April.  Plus since the Zags have no football program, their share of the pie (similar to Notre Dame) isn't as big. 

Look, this may be a bit more far-fetched than even my pitch three years ago but the ACC is in survival mode right now. While the ACC doesn't have to do anything at all, making proactive moves seems to be wise right now. That's why they added Cal and Stanford to begin with. With Clemson and Florida State trying their hardest to break free from the conference, there is a lot that's up in the air. 

Pac-12 To Add Four Mountain West Schools And Is Back In Business

Late Wednesday night reports swirled that the Pac-12 conference ... which consists of just Oregon State and Washington State ... will be adding Mountain West members Boise State, Colorado State, Fresno State and San Diego State. Some bullet points on this:

SO WHAT HAPPENED?

This puts the conference at six members. For now, the NCAA allows the Pac-12 to be under the mandatory eight member threshold for two years (which would be the 2024-2025 and 2025-2026 seasons), which means the league must find two more schools to join them before that time frame ends. The four new schools will join the Pac-12 in 2026.

There are financial dealings which I won't go too in depth on, but it is important to note that the Pac-12 will help pay the four schools exit fees from the Mountain West as well as paying the MW a "poacher's fee", which was agreed to when the two leagues decided to do sports business this school year. The Pac-12 is able to do this because they've amassed a war chest due to keeping money and benefits the ten schools that bolted left behind. 

Since the Pac-12 watched those ten schools leave, there has been a lot of speculation over what will happen next. Would the Pac-12 rebuild be adding some Mountain West teams? Would the two Pac-12 teams join the Mountain West or another conference? Would the Pac-12 and Mountain West merge? There were other options, but those three were the most likely outcomes ... and the first one seems to have played out. 

The Pac-12 adds Boise State, who fits nicely with both Washington State (which is a six hour drive away) and Oregon State (about an eight hour drive). Boise State blasted on the scene about 15 years ago and has been one of the more popular candidates to make the jump to a Power 5 conference. Adding San Diego State and Fresno State gets the league back into California after losing all four of their schools from that state over the summer. Both have had solid football programs over the years. Colorado State may not have that kind of success, but they do bring the Denver area somewhat back to the Pac-12 after losing Colorado. 

WHO COULD JOIN THE PAC-12 NEXT? 

That's a good question. Typically conferences say that they're done with expansion for the moment once they do add schools ... even if that ends up not being true. But we all know that the Pac-12 cannot be done expanding since they must get to that eight member requirement by 2026, so this should move pretty quickly. 

Let me just start out by saying there is next to no way that Cal and Stanford return to the Pac-12. That seems to be the popular sentiment, but it really doesn't make much sense when you look at the reason most realignment happens -- money. When Cal and Stanford joined the ACC, they signed the same Grant of Rights deal that Florida State and Clemson are trying so hard to find a way out of. So there's no way the ACC willingly allows Cal and Stanford to go back to the Pac-12 right in front of Florida State and Clemson (who are in lawsuits against the ACC). A move like that would be devastating for the ACC since it would kick open the door for any school that wants out to do so ... and Florida State and Clemson could be joined by North Carolina, Virginia, Miami and others. The entire reason that the ACC even added Cal and Stanford was to keep the conference from imploding, so it makes no sense for them to trigger that happening.

Also understand that Cal and Stanford willingly opted to leave Oregon State and Washington State behind because they didn't want to risk being left with nothing and they felt that an invite from the ACC was better than whatever a new Pac-12 would look like. I mean, Cal and Stanford could've just joined the Mountain West instead of the ACC if the new Pac-12 was attractive to them. Right now they are in a Power 4 conference ... something that this new Pac-12 isn't guaranteed to be part of. The Pac-12 won't be able to cobble together any broadcast deal better than what they have with the ACC ... even if they agreed to a discounted rate. And Stanford playing conference games against Florida State, Clemson, Miami and Louisville is much more high profile than anything the Pac-12 offers. Cal and Stanford also enjoy the academic profile of the ACC. 

Sure, geography of the whole thing makes sense, but not much else does at the moment.

So who does make sense? There are more Mountain West schools to choose from, but the problem that league has is there is some real dead weight at the bottom. Wyoming makes sense from a geography standpoint and they've been a solid program, but do they attract eyes? I can see UNLV getting in because it brings in Las Vegas, but the football program has been bad for quite some time. Aside from that there is slim pickings. Air Force? Maybe. Nevada has been really, really bad. San Jose State has turned itself around, but are they that attractive? Same goes for Utah State and New Mexico. You also have to consider that if the Pac-12 was looking at adding any of these other Mountain West schools ... wouldn't they have done so with the four they've already offered? 

Maybe the Pac-12 looks more towards the midwest. Memphis could be really attractive. Like Boise State, it seems to have been on the short list of Group of 5 schools ready to move up. Tulane could also be a nice addition if they decide to go that route. That would also open up the possibility of UTSA, UTEP or North Texas. Louisiana Tech? 

See, that's the problem. There really aren't many great options out there. None of the Power 4 schools would leave to go to the Pac-12 and the Group of 5 possibilities aren't very sparkling. Still, they must add at least two schools. I think UNLV and Wyoming are the more likely candidates, unless they go after Memphis and UTSA. Heck, maybe they go after all four schools. 

A dark horse possibility is if the Pac-12 could convince North Dakota State and South Dakota State to make the step up from FCS to FBS.  

WHAT'S NEXT FOR THE MOUNTAIN WEST?

Obviously the Mountain West is pissed about this. Once the Pac-12 was gutted, pretty much everyone felt that they would dance around with the Mountain West and that's what has happened. Being mad doesn't help anything (ask the Big East in the mid-2000s) so they need to get to work.

First thing's first: is anyone else leaving? We already discussed that the Pac-12 could go after UNLV, Wyoming or others so it is difficult for the MW to make a plan when they aren't sure what's going to be left of their conference. Even so, they've got to be looking at Conference USA and the American conferences for new members. Of course, those candidates will also be hoping the Pac-12 asks them out to the prom first, so this could take some time. 

We do know that right now the MW is: Air Force, Nevada, New Mexico, San Jose State, UNLV, Utah State and Wyoming in all sports and Hawaii in football-only. That eight member requirement that I mentioned earlier for the Pac-12? Well that applies to the MW who now only has eight football members and seven for other sports. Starting today, the MW needs to be looking at who to bring in. 

The same teams I mentioned above would be MW candidates. The MW could really dig into Texas by adding UTEP, UTSA, Rice and North Texas. Maybe Louisiana Tech or UAB? 

There is something else to consider: What if other leagues begin to poach the Mountain West?  That is a legitimate question, especially when you consider that the MW hasn't had a team in the New Year's Six game since 2014. Could The American or Sun Belt really be able to begin pulling teams out of the Mountain West? I mean, if the Pac-12 goes after Memphis and Tulane, for example, why wouldn't the AAC be proactive and look at schools like New Mexico or Air Force (the AAC already has Army and Navy in the league as football members). Maybe that also leads to Wyoming or UNLV as travel partners with those schools. As we saw with the Pac-12 just one year ago, if members begin questioning where they are at and looking to jump ship, this could get out of hand really quickly. 

Sportz NFL Week 1 Recap

Just a quick recap of what I saw in my Sportz Room -- filled with TVs that I can watch all games going on at the same time.

GAME OF THE WEEK: Chiefs over Ravens. Can we get that for the AFC Championship? There was buzz with the defending champs against the reigning MVP; this being the first game of the season; and the game was well played. And it all came down to a toe landing out of bounds in the endzone.

UPSET OF THE WEEK: Patriots over Bengals. This is a stunner, but signs were there. The Patriots were looked at as one of the worst teams in the NFL entering the season, while the Bengals ... with a healthy Joe Burrow ... were a possible challenger to the two-time defending champion Chiefs. Yet New England, with new head coach Jerod Mayo, went into Cincinnati and beat the Bengals. Cincinnati didn't have Tee Higgins and Ja'Marr Chase played despite sitting all preseason. The concern comes from Burrow, who is coming back from wrist surgery and looked pretty uncomfortable on the sideline. 

DOMINANT PERFORMANCE OF THE WEEK: Saints over Panthers. Look, Carolina isn't very good. We knew this. But, man, are they really this bad? Derek Carr looked like Drew Brees out there just picking the Panthers defense apart. Everybody ate with the Saints 47-10 win. The question now turns to if Bryce Young really is that guy for the Panthers. I feel it is a bit early for those types of conversations, but this organization is trending towards having the worst record in the NFL for the second straight season and this time they'll get to keep that No. 1 overall pick. 

DUD OF THE WEEK: 49ers over Jets. Honestly, this isn't my thinking. I'm high on the Niners and down on the Jets. I didn't expect Aaron Rodgers to walk into Santa Clara after playing just four snaps since January 2023 and light up one of the better defenses in the NFL. But a lot of people have big plans for New York and that didn't look promising. Not only was the Jets offense a bit off, their vaunted defense was pushed around by one of the most physical teams in the league. 

STORYLINE OF THE WEEK: Quarterback play was iffy. Preseason is down to just three games now and we rarely see starters play anymore -- especially quarterbacks. It seemed to show all over the league this weekend. Joe Burrow, Aaron Rodgers and Kirk Cousins looked rusty after coming back from injuries. Rookies Caleb Williams, Jayden Daniels and Bo Nix struggled in their first games. But Deshaun Watson was horrible. Daniel Jones looked like his time in New York is over. Bryce Young's honeymoon is fading fast. Trevor Lawrence didn't look like he was worth the contract he signed this offseason. Jordan Love didn't look like the guy who dominated the second half of last season (then he got hurt). There certainly were some great performances by guys like Baker Mayfield, Derek Carr and CJ Stroud to name a few, but this was a soft start for some of the QBs.

ESPN/DirecTV Dispute Shows Us One Major Point

I don't want to use this space to get into the Disney dispute with DirecTV that caused its networks to be blacked out on it service. We are in Day 4 of this showdown with no end in sight, causing 11.3 million viewers to be without Disney channels ... most notably ESPN.

For full disclosure, I am one of those viewers.

I'm not going to get into my frustration with this here -- I have vented elsewhere to people representing both sides. I will however point out one thing that is very evident in this battle. It's about the games, stupid.

The games.

When programming was pulled on Sunday night right before the LSU-USC college football game (and during the US Open), people were pissed. They've been pissed that they missed Boston College upsetting Florida State on Monday night. And they will be extremely pissed starting Friday when they will begin missing college football games. Then imagine what it will be like when we get to Monday night and the Jets-49ers Monday Night Football game is blacked out for DirecTV subscribers. 

Which that's getting to my point ... and this is mainly pointed at ESPN.

No one is whining they are missing Stephen A. Smith shouting on First Take. No one is complaining that they can't get their daily update on the Dallas Cowboys, New York Jets or the Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback situation on GetUp!. No one is upset they can't watch two curmudgeons groan on Pardon The Interruption or a bunch of "columnists" banter topics on Around The Horn. We want our games. We want the games you guys spend the hours of 1am to 7pm Eastern Time screaming about.

ESPN taught us that we don't really need SportsCenter anymore. They admitted that we can go to YouTube or somewhere else to find the big sports clips of the day and get our sports news in real time via Twitter or whatever just as they do. Aside from their overnight content, SportsCenter has been reduced to a rerun of all the stuff people are talking about on all their other shows. What was once sports fans most important times of the day has been reduced to goofy jokes with some sports background. Even NFL Primetime, a show that was my lifeblood on Sundays growing up, has been relegated to ESPN+ content. And I do watch it every single Sunday during the NFL season.  

It is the games, stupid. 

I'm sure that ESPN knows that since they've done everything they can to make sure they've gobbled up as much live sports content they can. NFL? They have Monday Night Football. NBA? They are the top tier and home of the NBA Finals. MLB? They've got plenty. College sports? They have the SEC, ACC and the College Football Playoff as well as the top place for big time college hoops matchups. They also have plenty of other sports and events, just like the US Open I'm now missing. 

They know this, which is what sucks. This stalemate was going to last at least until this weekend. The game of chicken would play out while DirecTV customers are missing 19 college football games this weekend and, possibly, the Jets-49ers game on Monday night. 

ESPN also knows that I don't have to watch Sunday NFL Countdown this Sunday morning before Week 1 of the NFL season. I can switch over to NFL Network's NFL Gameday Morning instead. I've already said I don't need them for highlight shows since they've moved away from caring about that. They know they've spent a lot of money on these broadcast rights and have spent the last several years retooling their books by letting go some big name talent while paying a ton for Mike Greenberg, Stephen A. Smith, Joe Buck, Pat McAfee and Troy Aikman.

They are aware that this is a game of chicken that could be costly for both sides, but are banking that people will drop DirecTV for another service (pssst. they do this to all those services, too) before they switch to another network for their sports. They just hope we don't get used to going other places for content, especially when FOX, Amazon and NBC have made huge moves taking some of these events back. Plus, ESPN has fumbled some opportunities (their NBA studio show is horrific and they've been destroyed for breaking up their top NBA broadcast team and then watch two replacements leave for coaching jobs) and made some unpopular decisions regarding their talent (hello, RG3!). 

One thing ESPN does really well is the games. I can go all day not watching ESPN, but the games will always matter. Even if ESPN forgets that at times, the reality is that they entire thing is built on the actual competitions. Both ESPN and DirecTV are about to find out how important that is for their customers. Of course DirecTV's customers are its subscribers while ESPN's is its broadcast partners (like DirecTV) and its advertisers. If the advertisers who just paid boat loads of money to have their commercials and ads connected to ESPN events that are blacked out to 11.3 million people, the pressure will be on.