WAC offers Hawaii "football-only" membership; Mountain West says no timeline on talks with Hawaii

By Brian Murphy

The Mountain West Conference has "no definitive timeline" for completing discussions with the Hawaii, a spokesman for commissioner Craig Thompson told the Statesman on Friday.

The league's presidents voted Thursday to initiate conversations with Hawaii about joining the league as a football-only member. On Thursday evening, reports surfaced in the Hawaii press and the school held a press conference to announce it was negotiating with the Mountain West to join.

WAC offers Hawaii "football-only" membership

The WAC has offered Hawaii a "football-only" membership in the league in an attempt to keep the Warriors from agreeing to the same deal with the Mountain West Conference, WAC commissioner Karl Benson wrote to league presidents and athletic directors in an e-mail obtained by the Idaho Statesman.

Hawaii and the Mountain West acknowledged Thursday night that they are negotiating to have the Warriors join the league as a football-only member.

The WAC's offer to its longest-serving current member came after athletic directors at Idaho, Louisiana Tech, New Mexico State, San Jose State and Utah State voted on a Thursday conference call.

Benson's e-mail also suggests that the Mountain West is still evaluating the impact of adding Hawaii on its television contract and the evaluation could take up to a month.

Hawaii officials said Thursday they had a handshake agreement to join the league, but still needed to work out additional details. That is further than Mountain West officials went in an official statement, which said that the league's board of directors had "authorized Commissioner Craig Thompson to begin discussions with the University of Hawaii regarding possible membership in the sport of football only."

• Hawaii officials certainly sound like it is a done deal in this Honolulu Star Advertiser story.

Check out this quote from athletic director Jim Donovan: "The important thing is we're going to the dance. That's always been the most important thing in my life. I'm a former offensive lineman, and no matter what it takes, we try to get the job done. We don't expect a lot of fanfare. We just want to get the job done."

• Here is a column from the Star Advertiser, which tries to set Hawaii fans at ease since there was no actual invitation offered by the Mountain West.

Be sure to check back for more on this developing story throughout the day.

You can follow Murph's Turf on Twitter.

1290202623 WAC offers Hawaii "football-only" membership; Mountain West says no timeline on talks with Hawaii Idaho Statesman Copyright 2014 Idaho Statesman . All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

This is too funny,

and it's starting to strongly resemble a soap opera....Sunny...

As the Football Spirals?

As the Football Spirals?


Excellent. Just excellent.

A tip of the 'Ol Sombrero to ya, Sir.

Well done.


Elvis drawal..."Thankyou,

Elvis drawl..."Thankyou, thankyouverymuuuch"

Give it up Benson!

Time to give in and talk with Craig Thompson about combining the two conferences. It's over.

Yes - Benson is prolly job hunting next week

Yep - it is over for the WAC. The writing is written on the wall with electric neon Green letters. I believe we will see a merging of the MWC and the WAC. Maybe officially announced in FEB or MAR, with an effective date of 2012.

Maybe keeps the name MWC or some other new name for marketing/branding purposes.

Might even have a CUSA team or two. It's possible, in order to round out two big divisions.

I can see two division in the new conference, split along the Continental Divide - East (Atlantic Drainage) and West (Pacific Drainage). Prolly BSU gets Idaho again as a division mate.

I just can't see TCU going to the Big East. I am guessing TCU goes into the division that BSU is not in. So, could be fun when the two division champs meet for the conference championship game (BSU v. TCU every year). The BCS would love that as it would eliminate at least one potential BCS Buster, right off the bat - guaranteeing TCU or BSU would have at least one loss and not be 'undefeated'. I am guessing the BCS is pulling for/orchestrating the creation of this new Super Conference, behind the scenes.

Benson is fighting for his professinal position at this point. No WAC - no big money job. Maybe he gets to be a file clerk or an assistant gopher/but-t boy for the BCS Committee?

Maybe he could move back to Boise and be a Bowl Scout for the H-Bowl. He knows the system.


No merger with WAC

There is no reason the mnt west would want the barrel bottom Idaho, SJ St, New Mx state. La tech will join an eastern conference. The WAC is done, gonzo, el finey. Might be room in the Big Sky for the Vanduls, where they belong!

In truth, the "bottom barrel

In truth, the "bottom barrel 4" of the WAC has a better overall record this year than the "bottom barrel 4" of the MWC.


doesn't matter...mtn west does not need 4 more mouths to feed. Its about $$$, and the WAC bottom 4 don't bring it....the MtnW bottom 4 are already feeding there.


lolol, at your naivete.

The bigger the conference, the more teams (especially cupcakes), the more money. You got it backwards. Also, a Superconference needs two big divisions with some teams being 'fodder' for the top teams. It is not about SOS - it is about going 'undefeated' for a nonAQ conference champion to have a chance at busting the BCS, regardless of the cupcakes that are played. The cupcakes increase the chances of the conference's Big Dog going undefeated in division/conference play, and the Middle dogs getting into other post season bowls. More money for all.

You really need to read the book, "Death To The BCS".

You also, need to think outside of the box on this stuff. You are thinking like a fan. You need to think like a business person would think to enhance your revenue stream.

I enjoyed reading your post. It was sad; but a reflection of how you honestly feel, and your current level of knowledge and understanding of how the BCS works.

Take care.



I understand your point. I dont speak for any Bronco but me. I am tired of watching games that dont matter. San Jose, New Mexico etc... that are considered "cupcakes". I would trade a few wins to get some close hard fought games that have conference title implications. Not all Broncos feel this way, however. They like to win all their games even if there are 8 "cupcakes".

JLandon - ever had a cupcake with maple frosting and bacon?

I can identify with you. I used to feel that way, too.

But then I met Wiz who educated me about 'The Formula' and then I read the book "Death To The BCS". I have totally changed my premise these past several months.

Maybe I am totally wrong and waaay off base, but I can now see how it works by being in a conference with bottom feeders - a vitutal annual guaranteed win.

Wiz has me convinced that nonAQ teams like BSU and TCU , absolutely need cupcakes in their conference, to pad the wins. Throw in a Top Tier BCS team once in a while for marketing and media hype purposes, and voila, instant recognition as a Top Tier perrenial nonAQ BCS Buster. Remember how much BSU was laying all the marbles on the line the first game of this season with VT. A loss would have ended the season's goals of busting the BCS, right then and there. A victory over VT would have resulted in instant national talk and hype about the Broncos.

Thank God, we won!

This whole SOS crap is so overblown, and really doesn't make a diddlee darn in the long run for accomplishing a nonAQ's goal of busting the BCS. It is just smoke and mirrors that the BCS uses to justify their computer rankings and human pollster shills.

BSU got to where it is, as a nonAQ BCS Buster, by being in the WAC, and having 'undefeated' seasons, while battling the perceptin of a supposedly 'weak SOS' (Weak WAC talk stuff). Pure and simple.

I want to see the Broncos be a perrenial Top Tier ranked team.

We really need them cupcakes.


PS - Lolol, if you think I am an idiot and stupid, that's okay with me. My two pugs do.

you are both correct

personally i agree with landon,love to see higher quality opponents on the schedule. vndl is correct, along with wisdom, and gene bleymaier is a genius. win every game, include some big names and you have a great result. in reality, the pac 2 is not so different. the bottom 5 teams in that conference can't keep up with anyone. combine that with new mex, port st and bottom feeder tennessee and you also have a success story.


Whatever.....at the end of the day, the mtn will NOT have Idaho, SJS, or NMS or L.Tech in it.......so good riddens to the bottom feeders!!!


Oh ye of limited capacity for probing comprehension.

I second

your reply


But you'll still have to listen to them whine!

Well said!

That's precisely what BSU, Fresno, and Nevada are trying to distance themselves from...the bottom feeders and their losing programs! Hawaii won't find anyplace that will want to play them home and home, it simply is way out of line for travel budgets!


Mountain West Athletic Conference (MWAC) has a nice ring to it.


If there is a merger (which I doubt) I honestly dont think Idaho is part of that discussion. It is really hard to "kick a school out" of a conference, but if you are picking and choosing for a "merger" It is the perfect way to drop some less than desirable teams. Especially if they bring in some C usa teams too. With Idaho's stadium and track record in D1 ball and weighed benefit to the "new" conference I really dont see them being included. Understand I am not taking a cheap shot here, just thinking out loud. It isnt the wac that is in trouble so much as it will be the NMstates, Idahos, SDSUs... these will be the real casualties.
It is times like these that I wish there was some more in depth reporting from the statesman on the vandal side of things.
no reason we cant be freinds now, BSU and UI dont play each other. Just dont hold it against me that I really want to see the vandies fail.....

Tater2 Forget the darn rivalry crap - that is microperspective

Buddy, old pal of mine. You still don't get it.

It is not about Idaho vs. BSU rivalry crap. It is about BIG Money. Put the rivalry junk off to the side, for a moment. Put on your colorless objective businessman hat for a moment, will ya?

A Superconference needs cupcakes for the Big Dogs to beat up on.

Fact # 1. Idaho is a cupcake - always will be in FBS - its okay with them - they get more money that way.

Fact # 2. BSU is a Big Dog - always will be in FBS - its okay with Idaho - they BOTH, get more money that way.

Fact # 3. A Superconference needs two 8-10 team divisions with one Big Dog in each division - 3 to 4 middle teams that can get 'bowl eligible' and go to post season bowls and bring in money for the conference - and, 4 to 5 cupcakes, so the middle guys and the Big Dogs do good. The cupcakes know they are cupcakes, and that's okay - they get god money anyways. That's how it works.

It behooves BSU to have Idaho as a division mate, as both benefit from it. BSU gets an auto win and Idaho gets paid to be a cupcake.

Sheesh, what a 'doink'.



PS - Did you get your elk head regular mounted or are you getting a European mount?

PPS - I just learned the 'doink' word a little bit ago, and have been dying to use it, ever since.

There are plenty of cupcakes to go around.

I dont do euro mounts.... strictly missionary......

Do tell...

Why wouldn't TCU jump to the Big East? Is it a logical fit? No - but neither is the MWC. And in the Big East they would have a clear path the the BCS for the foreseeable future.

I think this invitation to Hawaii is an indicator that the MWC knows TCU is going to bail.

Actually there are some very

sound reasons for not going to the Big Easy

1.) They only want football-only.

2.) Cost of travel (lodging, etc) is across the board 10-15% more.

3.) Recruiting, California vs "the tri-state".

4.) Persistent rumors that the Big easy will be raided by the Big Ten this summer.

5.) The MWC is all but assured AQ status by 2014.

Hawaii is a good move (especially football only) if only for the extra game every-other year (with only 3 non-con games)

Just my 2 cents

Bigger Isn't Always Better

If a conference gets the same TV revenue for 12 schools as for 18, it stays at 12. That's more money for schools.

TV doesn't care how many schools there are. They want to know which schools have value. The Pac-10 wanted Texas because it is THE school in the Big 12 and the state of Texas and is less than happy there.

Recall, since most of these schools are public institutions, they get backlash for giving away money just because a couple schools want "easy wins." Presidents aren't going to vote for that.

Idaho adds no value to anyone but the Big Sky. San Jose State cannot get press in the crowded Bay Area market. New Mexico State is a sloppy second to New Mexico and is in El Paso's media market. Utah State was already heavily overshadowed by BYU and Utah without Utah getting the golden ticket. Louisiana Tech isn't stealing any market share from LSU and shares small pieces with Louisiana-Monroe and even Grambling. There's no reason for the Mountain West to include any of these schools into their plans... though if they can't land Houston, Utah State may be in line just to fill numbers.

Pounder - FAIL

Your knowledge about how 'it works' on the business end of CFB and why college Presidents and conference commissioners, do what they do, is nothing less than, abysmal.

If there is anybody to have ever posted on these blogs that would benefit from reading the book, "Death To The BCS", it is you.


Sorry pounder

but what VNDL said..........

Wondered this also over the

Wondered this also over the last months. Disregarding any team loyalty or other team/conference bashing...anyone have any insight as to why that wouldn't work?

Wait a second...

That's sort of like calling a $5.00 bet and raising -$2.50, isn't it?

Yeah, only poker has the

Yeah, only poker has the rule that minimum raise would be $5.00 do keep people from embarassing themselves with nickle and dime attempts like this!

the wac and the mwc

do the people who run their conferences are ignorant plus stupid

Complete sentence fail.

Complete sentence fail.

no surprise, it's weistard

truant, again, from his third grade class.


Do you even what wrote?

Pay him no mind

He's just an intern or an employee doing what his employer wants him to do. He's just going off a preset script with the 'talking points of the day.

He is actually quite good at his job - and entertaining, too.

He gets readers stirred up and rallying around the blorange Bronco Nation flag.

He is a Contrarian Cheerleader of sorts for The Men In Blue (or I guess it's orange tonite - hard to keep up with all the uniform changes - game to game - my brain is fried).



You crack me up like no other poster ever has. Keep up your great logical arguments. I'm sure you have convinced many of my fellow bsu fans that bsu is no good

weistard claimed ucla last year

not certain what his claimed affiliation is this year.


Why would Hawaii take the WAC deal if they can have the same deal with the MWC? Seems like the WAC did not really offer them anything.

I agree about the merger, why would the MWC want that. They have taken all the good teams in the WAC, what would they gain by taking the bottom feeders. It would be good for the WAC but makes no sense for the MWC to do it.

Unfortunately for BSU it seems we have just moved the WAC over to a new group of bottom feeders. We can only hope that TCU stays.


Hawaii being a football only team in the WAC would save a ton of traveling money for Hawaii and the other WAC schools. If Hawaii goes to the Big West in other sports it would save them a lot of travel dollars for all other sports. So, this could be a win-win. I'm not sure how big a TV draw Hawaii is so their membership in the MWC could be a drag on the other schools revenue.

Why would you combine the 2 conferences?

If this conference realignment is about money, and it is, why would anyone want more than 12 teams in a conference? Someone please explain to me the benefit of having a conference with San Jose St. La Tech, Utah St. Idaho, New Mexico, New Mexico State? I havent heard a good argument from anyone as to why this benefits the top teams in a league. If the Broncos make a BCS bowl game in the future, and have to split 16 18 24 ways, how is that fair? The leeches among the narcissistic universities astounds me. Pull your own weight. Put a quality team on the field and compete. All this complaining and then hoping your team gets to have the conferences merge is shameful. YOU DONT DESERVE TO MERGE. YOU DONT GET TO TO COMBINE. YOU DIDNT EARN IT. Earn your own way. This is why young people today think they can half a&* stuff and then hope someone comes to their rescue.

VNDL, I respect you almost more than anyone here but I disagree with you on this. I dont see how having more teams earn you more money.

JLandon - It is about more teams means more bowl money

You say, en parte: " . . . I dont see how having more teams earn you more money."

It is simple, so very simple, really. I used to make it too complicated in my mind.

The more teams a conference has, the more middle post season bowl qualifiers (7-5 minimum and sometimes 6-6 with a waiver) a conference has. The more cupcakes a conference has, the more middle post season bowl qualifiers a conference has. Every conference needs cupcakes for the middle and tops to beat. It's okay with the cupcakes, cuz they are getting a share of the middle bowls and top bowls, in the end.

The BIG Money to be made for a conference is not necessarily the Top BCS Bowls (Fiesta, Orange, Sugar, and etc.). It is also, greatly enhanced, in the middle tier bowls. The more bowls a conference can get to, the more money into the conference pot to be shared by all. The more middle tier bowls, the better - more money for a conference to potentially get with the success of their middle teams. Long live the thought of the creation of a future Massengil's Duche Powder Bowl in Salt Lake City, Utah. or a future Horse Pea Bowl in Moscow, Idaho!

A really smart conference will have two big ten team divisions, with a couple of perrenial Big Dogs in each division, more hungry middle guys, and a good share of willing cupcakes.


PS - I am not saying I respect nor admire the current situation, as a fan - it stinks - just saying I now understand how it works. It is not an ethical nor moral concept, at all - real dirty stuff. But it is what it is, and I don't think you nor I can ever change it. I did my best trying to explain it.

Love the Salt Lake City Bowl name

The way you put it makes sense. Im understanding it a little more.I guess I hate the fact of paying good money to watch games against lousy opponents. Thats probably being a bad fan.


Actually you are what is known as a Superfan. All of us on these blogs are, or we wouldn't be here rooting and discussing our various teams and conferences, to begin with.

You are an excellent fan. We all are. Our only collective goal is to see our team(s) do well and succeed.

This is all part of the process of educating ourselves as to the realities of the corrupt BCS system.

Change will never come, unless we do our best to really educate ourselfes and understand how corrupt it really is.

It does come as a shock, though, to realize that we have all been duped in the past and used as pawns, by our 120 schools, Presidents, ADs, coaches, athletic associations, conference Commissioners, and the vaunted BCS Committee.

Stick with it. Change will come, eventually.

Go Broncos


PS - Only about 5 hours until kickoff


Im excited for tonight. Ill be thinking of ya when I see the Broncos take the field, in either Blue or Orange.

exusem me VNDL

Still haven't read the book......but......didn't you post the other day that schools mostly lose money on bowl games?

BTW did you see the Big Ten championship game got it's TV new contract.


Please find that post. I can't remember doing so, in the same vein as the big conferences generating revenue from the success of their middle and top tier teams. I would like to read it, again.

Possibly, I was reffering to an individual invitee to a post season bowl, and how they have to accept a block of tickets at retail price, pay for their travel expenses, agree to a week long period of stay in bowl approved housing, and agree to buying corporate sponsorships, which most times out weighs the gross payout the bowl generates for that specific team. A totally different thing.

I think it is mixing apples and oranges with the broadcast and sponsorship revenue that conferences get for bowl games their teams play in, if it is the post I think it is.

Please find it, and we can both yak further about it.



my reference post

Schools don't make money playing in post season bowls
Submitted by aqfunk on Sun, 11/14/2010 - 5:31pm.

It is a myth, that they do.

Yes, the bowls give a payout to the schools who accept a bowel bid. But the schools gotta pay their own transportation costs, accept a big block of tickets at regular prices (Usually half to each school playing, thus guaranteeing a 'sellout' to the bowl organizer), agree to buy a 'corporate sponsorship', agree to staying in bowl directed lodging/hotel for a minimum length of nights, and etc.

By the time the expenses are added up and compared to the bowl payout - the schools usually lose big bucks.

But hey, they played in a post season bowl, the AD got his bonus for getting the team to a bowl, the coaches got their bonuses for getting the team to a bowl, and the school's athletic association sold more memberships and renewals because their team got to a bowl.

Evrybody makes money, except the actual school itself. Most times the 'loss' is just absorbed by general school budget as provided by the taxpayers. (for public schools). Hence a form of government subsidy of the school's bowl participation.

Here is an example of a smart school, who turned down an invite to a post season bowl, because it didn't make good business sense for them to do so:




Yep, like I said, you are mixing apples and oranges between the two posts. That is the post I thought it was. Been along time, ago. I wrote it after reading the appropriate chapter of the book. Different chapters of the book, discuss diffferent things, regarding the massive amounts of money crisscrossing among the conferences, bowls, and teams of FBS schools. Hard to keep up sometimes.

Each post discusses different stuff. One discusses Big Conferences and how revenue is generated for conference teams to share, per boradcast and sponsorship revenue from the middle and top post season bowls,; while the other discusses the net proceeds of specific teams invited to play in the actual bowls themselves.

I know it gets confusing, at times.

Another good reason to get a copy of and read "Death To The BCS" which lays it out much better than I can.


Merge the MWC and WAC

A merger could work out for all parties. You merge the two, call it the WAC. Then you can get rid of the horrible television contract and go with ESPN. All schools benefit and money comes in. That's what it's about isn't it?

So have a 20+ team conference?

What college team do you support? Just curious.