Reader comments
Mike Sorensen: Mountain West should add 10th member ASAP
93 comments | Read story
Ken | 12:02 p.m. Aug. 9, 2007
In response to Ry - adding a 10th team wouldn't eliminate the 8 vs 9
play-in game in the basketball tournament. You'd still have that game and
you'd also have another play-in game with 7 vs 10. Unless, of course, you
only allow the top 8 teams into the tournament, which wouldn't be a bad
thing really.
I'm not convinced that the MWC needs a 10th team. But if the MWC adds a 10th team, I'm only in favor of adding Boise St. None of the other schools mentioned would add as much to the conference as BSU would.
I'm not convinced that the MWC needs a 10th team. But if the MWC adds a 10th team, I'm only in favor of adding Boise St. None of the other schools mentioned would add as much to the conference as BSU would.
Evan | 12:23 p.m. Aug. 9, 2007
Sure add Boise State - sounds like a money grab to me!
Comments continue below
Spencer | 12:28 p.m. Aug. 9, 2007
These are all good points, but who's to say that BSU wants to join the MWC?
There is a lot of discussion around which is the better conference the WAC or
the MWC. Perhaps BYU should look at joining the WAC where they have things such
as TV coverage for their events.
Virginian | 12:47 p.m. Aug. 9, 2007
Go for Tulsa to increase the recruiting footprint in TX/OK.
Crusty | 1:04 p.m. Aug. 9, 2007
Right... those guys wouldn't want to miss any of those midweek classes...
Greg | 1:11 p.m. Aug. 9, 2007
I know BSU has had great success with their football program, but they are also
a trucking school. How can a school like that help our conference.
RiverCity | 1:28 p.m. Aug. 9, 2007
BSU would be a good choice. They have really advanced their athletics as well
as their academics over the last few years. They have quickly become the
premier university in the state.
Moker | 1:31 p.m. Aug. 9, 2007
If you were to add Boise State, who would be competing for 2nd place every
football season? That's what it would come down to. Besides, the WAC offers
Boise State more competition than MWC teams. Don't believe me? BSU is 12-0
against MWC teams. The WAC is the better conference right now, is moving up and
making improvements, and has a brighter future. The MWC is stagnant and not
going anywhere.
Ratman | 1:32 p.m. Aug. 9, 2007
Adding more schools to the MWC just divides the already small financial pie more
ways. The only way expansion has a chance to help the conference is if the
incoming school adds greater size to the overall pie, which means larger markets
for future television agreements (look at the current mess) and a more prominent
national profile. The answer: Look to the University of Houston, which would
make a great travel partner for TCU, or Memphis, or maybe Tulane.
Sorry, Boise. You've had a fantastic run. But what will happen when your football team doesn't measure up to its recent success? What else could you bring to the MWC table? Your television market is so small it would add nothing to any future network deal, and your other sports programs have no national profile. If your football team even takes a small downturn (and it will at some point), national interest will cease. Then the MWC would be stuck with you.
No, if the MWC decides to expand, it needs to look to the southeast.
Sorry, Boise. You've had a fantastic run. But what will happen when your football team doesn't measure up to its recent success? What else could you bring to the MWC table? Your television market is so small it would add nothing to any future network deal, and your other sports programs have no national profile. If your football team even takes a small downturn (and it will at some point), national interest will cease. Then the MWC would be stuck with you.
No, if the MWC decides to expand, it needs to look to the southeast.
8team | 1:58 p.m. Aug. 9, 2007
BSU would add a whole lot more to the MWC Air Force ever has. They have an
average basketball team what else? The problem isn't who should they add,
but who they should get rid of.
Houston | 2:05 p.m. Aug. 9, 2007
The Houston Cougars would never move to the MWC unless there was an Auto-Qual
for the BCS attached. The C-USA division they are in right now is a great fit
with natural rivals.
As for BSU, there seem to be quite a few misconceptions about them. To the poster who claimed they were a "trucking school" I take it you're not aware the vo-tech programs have been spun-off to a new community college?
And to those who claim they cannot sustain their winning ways--granted every program has ups & downs but did you know that Boise State has been winning in football since it's inception? They won national championships at the JUCO and D1AA levels before moving to D1. If they joined the MWC, they would bring one of the best winning percentages (maybe second to BYU).
Add that they have recently won a PAC-10 title in wrestling (yes they compete in the PAC-10 in wrestling), have nationally ranked track and tennis programs plus a growing basketball program and I doubt you'd have to worry if Boise knows how to win.
As for BSU, there seem to be quite a few misconceptions about them. To the poster who claimed they were a "trucking school" I take it you're not aware the vo-tech programs have been spun-off to a new community college?
And to those who claim they cannot sustain their winning ways--granted every program has ups & downs but did you know that Boise State has been winning in football since it's inception? They won national championships at the JUCO and D1AA levels before moving to D1. If they joined the MWC, they would bring one of the best winning percentages (maybe second to BYU).
Add that they have recently won a PAC-10 title in wrestling (yes they compete in the PAC-10 in wrestling), have nationally ranked track and tennis programs plus a growing basketball program and I doubt you'd have to worry if Boise knows how to win.
Fred | 2:11 p.m. Aug. 9, 2007
If the mountain west expanded to 10 teams, they would have to consider
themselves very fortunate if Boise state decided to move to the MW. Boise state
doesnt need the MW, but In my opinion the MW really needs Boise State. We have
to realize that the landscape has changed for Boise State and they are not the
ones that are desperate for a conference that is a little better than the one
they are in to invite them to join. I am a faithfull Ute fan, and I would like
nothing more that to have the Broncos on our schedule every year but I also
understand that they may be out of our league. I think we need to start
pursuing this as a conference if we want to step it up to the next level.
dgr | 2:30 p.m. Aug. 9, 2007
The grass is always greener isn't it?
BSU is still a Big Sky team to me.
A successful one at that!
They've moved up and have excelled. Why pull them down into the MWC? Except for your own inflated view of your conference.
BSU is still a Big Sky team to me.
A successful one at that!
They've moved up and have excelled. Why pull them down into the MWC? Except for your own inflated view of your conference.
BSUfan | 2:38 p.m. Aug. 9, 2007
The MWC should worry about improving their own teams rather than taking the best
team from their sister conference. The MWC needs BSU in order to get better. But
BSU doesn't need the MWC. In fact, the WAC continues to improve overall.
Ratman | 3:06 p.m. Aug. 9, 2007
Houston, TCU was very much in the same stiuation as UH when the MWC extended
the invitation to join. If the MWC were to invite UH to join, they would use the
same process TCU, i.e. employ consulatnts, weigh options, etc. Your assertion
that UH would "never join" the MWC without the auto-qual to the BCS is
your fabrication.
To Houston and all the other BSU partisans, If you think the WAC is great, fine, stay with it and make it an even better conference. All the better for USU. You don't need to disparage the MWC to do that.
To Houston and all the other BSU partisans, If you think the WAC is great, fine, stay with it and make it an even better conference. All the better for USU. You don't need to disparage the MWC to do that.
rr | 4:08 p.m. Aug. 9, 2007
I agree that moving teams from the WAC would be difficult unless there is a
local rivalry acting as a draw (ie Nevada, New Mexico State, USU).
The MWC should work out a deal with the WAC to play a football title game every year: the MWC champ vs. the WAC champ the 1st weekend in December. That may draw enough attention to get a BCS auto-bid.
The MWC should work out a deal with the WAC to play a football title game every year: the MWC champ vs. the WAC champ the 1st weekend in December. That may draw enough attention to get a BCS auto-bid.
Fred | 4:38 p.m. Aug. 9, 2007
I wish all of my fellow Mt. West conference supporters would wake up and smell
the coffee. We do not have a major conferecence, hence the name given to our
conference a "mid major". We all know the saying "where ever you
go, there you are" that is what the MW is dealing with unless we take a
progresive step and invite a major player like Boise State. If we want to
change from mid major to major, we have to make changes and invite Boise State.
I hope they would accept the invitation for our sake. Then again we can just
accept the fact of being a second rate conference and maybe once every decade we
can get one of our teams in a BCS bowl. I hate the idea of getting better and
competing with bigger conferecnes any ways.
George | 7:53 p.m. Aug. 9, 2007
Forget about expanding the MWC! Let's just concentrate on improving the
league as a whole. When we get every team in the MWC playing up to par across
the board, we'll stand on our own merits as a distinguished league in both
academics and sports...we don't need the wac...and as you've read
above, they certainly don't want, or even much like, and believe they are
superior to the MWC...you take care of yours...we'll take care of ours!
Houston | 7:55 p.m. Aug. 9, 2007
Ratman, I don't see one disparaging comment about the MWC in my post. That
certainly wasn't my intention and I, in fact, am a huge fan of the WMC.
However I do think you need to:
1) verify your facts about the accomplishments of BSU before commenting negatively (it's hard to take serious jabs thrown at a program that is 12-0 against MWC schools);
2) accept that the MWC is not as appealing to other mids as it was 2-3 years ago (namely your terrible TV contract which has hurt your visibility); and
3) understand that for many of the supporter of schools in the new C-USA, there is a belief that they will become the next Auto-Qual conference--not the WAC or MWC. I feel confident in saying again that the U of H would not come to the MWC without a guarantee of an Auto-Qual.
The MWC is no longer seen as a sure route to the BCS. College football continues to evolve and the landscape will probably change significantly over the next three years. Your presidents have quite a bit of work to do to deliver on the promise of the MWC and so far, they have failed more than succeeded.
1) verify your facts about the accomplishments of BSU before commenting negatively (it's hard to take serious jabs thrown at a program that is 12-0 against MWC schools);
2) accept that the MWC is not as appealing to other mids as it was 2-3 years ago (namely your terrible TV contract which has hurt your visibility); and
3) understand that for many of the supporter of schools in the new C-USA, there is a belief that they will become the next Auto-Qual conference--not the WAC or MWC. I feel confident in saying again that the U of H would not come to the MWC without a guarantee of an Auto-Qual.
The MWC is no longer seen as a sure route to the BCS. College football continues to evolve and the landscape will probably change significantly over the next three years. Your presidents have quite a bit of work to do to deliver on the promise of the MWC and so far, they have failed more than succeeded.
jg | 8:30 p.m. Aug. 9, 2007
WAC vs MWC champs game makes sense. I am on that wagon. It's the best of
both worlds... plus BSU and BYU could bash each others brains out in the
World's Cockiest Outdoor Lard Party every year! Who doesn't want that?
jg | 8:31 p.m. Aug. 9, 2007
WAC vs MWC champs game makes sense. I am on that wagon. It's the best of
both worlds... plus BSU and BYU could bash each others brains out in the
World's Cockiest Outdoor Lard Party every year! Who doesn't want that?
Kenny | 8:51 p.m. Aug. 9, 2007
Why not reach for something bigger? Can't we steal someone from another
division? It'd be great to have a team that would actually help BYU in
their ranking when we crush them. And thanks Dnews for letting me speak my peace
Idaho Falls | 8:53 p.m. Aug. 9, 2007
I don't believe BSU will be such a winning team once they join the MWC.
The WAC does not measure up. Once they stop winning, nobody will care or pay
attention. Yeah, they had a great year last year but won't be able to
sustain their winning ways week in and week out when facing a tougher conference
from top to bottom. Look to the south to add another team. Bigger markets and
better TV coverage is the best thing the MWC can do right now.
Ida Y | 8:59 p.m. Aug. 9, 2007
Add a team or don't add a team it won't make a diff. Both the mwc
& wac conference still have a big problem. In the fact we don't have
an automatic birth to the Bowl Championship BSU got to play Oklahoma, and won,
"Big Deal" They should have gotten a chance at the national
championship. BSU is up this year and have been for some years. But so was BYU
i.e. a national championship. So has Utah when they got there BSC bid. But no
respect was or is given to any of these teams. Until we get an automatic birth
into the exclusive BCS club. Instead of tiring to tweak the mwc or wac conf.
lets put our collective efforts into a play off system that is fair to all
conferences. Everybody loved what BSU did. But even in getting the BCS game. We
were spit on again by the BCS. BSU was undefeated when did that stop meaning
anything???
MDW | 10:20 p.m. Aug. 9, 2007
BSU is no longer a little school in a small television market. There are nearly
600,000 people living in the Boise metro area plus how many millions of people
watched the Fiesta Bowl. BSU is in the national spotlight and the WAC has
benefitied. The MWC had a chance to add BSU several years ago and BSU was
courting the MWC. I'm not so sure that BSU would be willing to jump ship
just yet.
SLC | 10:51 p.m. Aug. 9, 2007
Why should Boise State join the MWC? What's in it for Boise?
Dax | 11:05 p.m. Aug. 9, 2007
Since when has Boise been good in anything besides football and they will have
their ebbs and flows. Really inviting Boise would be a huge mistake because we
would be taking on a whole school of sub-par programs for one program that is
good right now. It makes no sense to take them over other bigger schools.
Boise has football and that is it their basketball sucks and their women's
sports are horrible well except for the token apperance by the gymnastics.
Please Boise might be good now in Football but why would you want to share the
spoils with a school that brings nothing else. Heck might as well wait for UVSC
to go divison-1 in all sports it would be the same thing. Wake up.
Phoenix | 11:13 p.m. Aug. 9, 2007
If the MWC wants to be seen as a contender then they need a bigger presence.
The only way to accomplish that is to get a big school involved. Sorry to all
the BSU fans out there but outside of Idaho nobody thinks much of BSU. It will
never be more than a little hick school in the eyes of fans from bigger schools.
I dare say as exciting as the Fiesta Bowl was last year (I did cheer for BSU)
it will not repeat itself more than once a decade. If you think it will then you
are on crack. Has BYU ever gotten back to the national championship status since
it won the title? Big nope there. Utah won because they had the best coach in
the country pulling the strings. We have all seen what an average coach does
there with current coach whittless calling the shots. There isn't a school
in the MWC that can compete in a conference like the PAC, Big 10, or the SEC.
Making the conference better by getting a school from a large metropolitan area
such as Houston is a much more likely way to succeed. There is far more talent
to recruit from in Texas than Idaho. Even BSU gets it's best talent from
California and other places other than Idaho.
Fred | 11:46 p.m. Aug. 9, 2007
I can see why the the MWC does not grow and get better. Urban Meyer knew
something that we are too narrow minded to understand. We must have the most
shallow fan following in America. How long have we been waiting for Boise to
stop winning? They dont, they keep on winning no matter what division and
conference. This line about them being flash in the pan is getting pretty old.
How many times do they have to beat up on our MWC teams. I would rather have
them beat up on us in our conference than in a weaker conference such as the
wac. It doesnt matter if they get a new coach, they still win. It doesnt
matter if they loose thier starting QB, they still win and dominate. We can
talk about how great we are and that they wouldnt win in the MWC like they do in
the WAC, but we will never know until we give them an invite and they accept.
And this garbage about going south for a team is absolutely stupid, we are the
Mountain West and the last time I looked Boise is in the western and mountain
region of the United States.
Dave in SLC | 8:27 a.m. Aug. 10, 2007
I agree that it is long overdue to add a 10th school to the MWC. Boise State
meets all of the requirements, along with perhaps Nevada-Reno. Some will argue
taht both BYU and Utah should stand up for their in-state institutional
step-sister; Utah State. If USU were invited however, then it would be due to
both BYU and Utah joining the PAC-10, the economics of college sports dictate
such priorities like it or not. As for the MWC needing Boise State, they would
be a much more competative addition to the MWC than the Arizona Schools were
going to the then PAC-8 30 years ago. but as far as the MWC needing to improve
over the WAC, that is just utter nonesense. School for school, Athletic
Department for Athletic Department, the MWC kicks the WAC to the curb, and when
a conference is stuck with 3 Sun-Belt expandees as the WAC is, it drags them
down even more, and the WAC is the big loser for letting Boise State go, rather
than the MWC not getting them. The WAC loosing Boise State will kill the WAC
more than losing Arizona and arizona State to the PAC-10 did to the old league
30 years ago, and more to what the MWC would lose if BYU and Utah were to go to
the PAC-10 sooner rather than later.
Boise State Homer | 8:52 a.m. Aug. 10, 2007
As a fan, I would love to see Boise State in the MWC. The games are a lot of
fun to travel to, there are tons of MWC fans up here, and we never loose to MWC
teams. Just kidding about the last part. If you have not been up here, I bet
you would enjoy comming to away games here, and we would love to have you.
Ratman | 11:40 a.m. Aug. 10, 2007
Fred, Why are you so upset about an opposing view on a message board, enough to
call it "garbage" and "absolutely stupid?" Surely you can
back up your point of view without any of that. If you are a BSU fan, which is
reflected in your message, please remember the topic is expansion of a
conference in which BSU is not a member, and originates from a newspaper in a
MWC city. Therefore, you must accept that there will be views you don't
like.
Unfortunately, college sports is driven by football, and college football is driven by $$$$$. Teams and conferences will aline themselves accordingly. The old axion "follow the money" applies here. Much as I would love to see a major reorganization of college sports - a dissolution of conferences and reformation into divisions, an end to the privileges of the "elite" schools, a playoff, etc., it doesn't appear to be on the horizon.
In the meantime, the so-called "mid-majors" are left to fend for themselves as best they can. No supporter of any school can be blamed for wanting a better deal or affiliation for his/her institution. It's an emotional issue, as is evident in many of these postings.
Again, for the MWC it comes down to money. Currently, the MWC has an $82 million TV deal split 9 ways. Without getting into the issue of coverage, which is a whole other area of discussion, if the conference is looking for a new member, it will consider a school only if that institution will increase amount the next TV deal more than it takes from its conference share. Got it? That's the bottom line. If no prospective candidate for expansion can meet that condition, the MWC will stay with 9 teams.
At last check, the Boise metro TV market ranking is 119. The rankings for Houston, Memphis and New Orleans are "a bit" higher. Remember, money is the name of this game, not team competitiveness. That is why if (and it is a big "IF") the MWC ever considers expansion, it will give higher consideration to those larger markets in the southeast.
Unfortunately, college sports is driven by football, and college football is driven by $$$$$. Teams and conferences will aline themselves accordingly. The old axion "follow the money" applies here. Much as I would love to see a major reorganization of college sports - a dissolution of conferences and reformation into divisions, an end to the privileges of the "elite" schools, a playoff, etc., it doesn't appear to be on the horizon.
In the meantime, the so-called "mid-majors" are left to fend for themselves as best they can. No supporter of any school can be blamed for wanting a better deal or affiliation for his/her institution. It's an emotional issue, as is evident in many of these postings.
Again, for the MWC it comes down to money. Currently, the MWC has an $82 million TV deal split 9 ways. Without getting into the issue of coverage, which is a whole other area of discussion, if the conference is looking for a new member, it will consider a school only if that institution will increase amount the next TV deal more than it takes from its conference share. Got it? That's the bottom line. If no prospective candidate for expansion can meet that condition, the MWC will stay with 9 teams.
At last check, the Boise metro TV market ranking is 119. The rankings for Houston, Memphis and New Orleans are "a bit" higher. Remember, money is the name of this game, not team competitiveness. That is why if (and it is a big "IF") the MWC ever considers expansion, it will give higher consideration to those larger markets in the southeast.
Ratman | 12:50 p.m. Aug. 10, 2007
Houston, Just a couple of comments to your posting:
1) I was referring to your other sports, not football. Going 12-0 against MWC teams over the past few years is a great accomplishment, and you should be understandably proud. However, you might or might not be able to sustain that if you were competing against MWC teams week after week, especially after losing that great senior class. And, as I explained to Fred, it's going to come down to money, not competitiveness, IF the MWC ever considers expansion.
2) The TV deal is a horrible mess. You won't get much disagreement from any MWC fan. I do have to point out, though, that the $82 million deal with CSTV is a bit better than the $7 million the WAC has with ESPN/ABC, and was much better than what ESPN was offering the MWC as a renewal.
3) "Some supporters" of C-USA might think they're the premiere "mid-major" right now. Unfortunately for them, they were hurt immemsely when the "Big Least" stole Louisville, Cincinnati & S. Florida. Look at the schools in UH's division right now - Tulsa, Rice, SMU, UTEP & Tulane. With the exception of Tulane, the MWC was formed to get away from those schools, which were all part of the old WAC. The MWC has already demonstrated its capacity to take from the C-USA when it added TCU, and could probably take UH if it chose.
Now, having said all that, yes the MWC isn't as attractive nationally as it was a few years ago. All of that will ebb and flow, not only for the MWC but for all the "mid-majors." If our schools are in the WAC, MWC, C-USA, Mid-American or Sunbelt, face it. We're second-class citizens. Unless the college landscape changes, we'll be left fighting for the scraps left by the "big boys."
1) I was referring to your other sports, not football. Going 12-0 against MWC teams over the past few years is a great accomplishment, and you should be understandably proud. However, you might or might not be able to sustain that if you were competing against MWC teams week after week, especially after losing that great senior class. And, as I explained to Fred, it's going to come down to money, not competitiveness, IF the MWC ever considers expansion.
2) The TV deal is a horrible mess. You won't get much disagreement from any MWC fan. I do have to point out, though, that the $82 million deal with CSTV is a bit better than the $7 million the WAC has with ESPN/ABC, and was much better than what ESPN was offering the MWC as a renewal.
3) "Some supporters" of C-USA might think they're the premiere "mid-major" right now. Unfortunately for them, they were hurt immemsely when the "Big Least" stole Louisville, Cincinnati & S. Florida. Look at the schools in UH's division right now - Tulsa, Rice, SMU, UTEP & Tulane. With the exception of Tulane, the MWC was formed to get away from those schools, which were all part of the old WAC. The MWC has already demonstrated its capacity to take from the C-USA when it added TCU, and could probably take UH if it chose.
Now, having said all that, yes the MWC isn't as attractive nationally as it was a few years ago. All of that will ebb and flow, not only for the MWC but for all the "mid-majors." If our schools are in the WAC, MWC, C-USA, Mid-American or Sunbelt, face it. We're second-class citizens. Unless the college landscape changes, we'll be left fighting for the scraps left by the "big boys."
Ratman | 1:57 p.m. Aug. 10, 2007
Houston, Just a couple of comments to your posting:
1) I was referring to your other sports, not football. Going 12-0 against MWC teams over the past few years is a great accomplishment, and you should be understandably proud. However, you might or might not be able to sustain that if you were competing against MWC teams week after week, especially after losing that great senior class. And, as I explained to Fred, it's going to come down to money, not competitiveness, IF the MWC ever considers expansion.
2) The TV deal is a horrible mess. You won't get much disagreement from any MWC fan. I do have to point out, though, that the $82 million deal with CSTV is a bit better than the $7 million the WAC has with ESPN/ABC, and was much better than what ESPN was offering the MWC as a renewal.
3) "Some supporters" of C-USA might think they're the premiere "mid-major" right now. Unfortunately for them, they were hurt immemsely when the "Big Least" stole Louisville, Cincinnati & S. Florida. Look at the schools in UH's division right now - Tulsa, Rice, SMU, UTEP & Tulane. With the exception of Tulane, the MWC was formed to get away from those schools, which were all part of the old WAC. The MWC has already demonstrated its capacity to take from the C-USA when it added TCU, and could probably take UH if it chose.
Now, having said all that, yes the MWC isn't as attractive nationally as it was a few years ago. All of that will ebb and flow, not only for the MWC but for all the "mid-majors." If our schools are in the WAC, MWC, C-USA, Mid-American or Sunbelt, face it. We're second-class citizens. Unless the college landscape changes, we'll be left fighting for the scraps left by the "big boys."
1) I was referring to your other sports, not football. Going 12-0 against MWC teams over the past few years is a great accomplishment, and you should be understandably proud. However, you might or might not be able to sustain that if you were competing against MWC teams week after week, especially after losing that great senior class. And, as I explained to Fred, it's going to come down to money, not competitiveness, IF the MWC ever considers expansion.
2) The TV deal is a horrible mess. You won't get much disagreement from any MWC fan. I do have to point out, though, that the $82 million deal with CSTV is a bit better than the $7 million the WAC has with ESPN/ABC, and was much better than what ESPN was offering the MWC as a renewal.
3) "Some supporters" of C-USA might think they're the premiere "mid-major" right now. Unfortunately for them, they were hurt immemsely when the "Big Least" stole Louisville, Cincinnati & S. Florida. Look at the schools in UH's division right now - Tulsa, Rice, SMU, UTEP & Tulane. With the exception of Tulane, the MWC was formed to get away from those schools, which were all part of the old WAC. The MWC has already demonstrated its capacity to take from the C-USA when it added TCU, and could probably take UH if it chose.
Now, having said all that, yes the MWC isn't as attractive nationally as it was a few years ago. All of that will ebb and flow, not only for the MWC but for all the "mid-majors." If our schools are in the WAC, MWC, C-USA, Mid-American or Sunbelt, face it. We're second-class citizens. Unless the college landscape changes, we'll be left fighting for the scraps left by the "big boys."
Matt | 2:28 p.m. Aug. 10, 2007
BSU, Fresno St, Nevada, or Hawaii... the would be crazy to leave the WAC for the
MWC. The WAC has gained alot of respect for their teams through the exposure
they get on TV (even thought the money isn't what it is with the CSTV/Mtn
contract.) But you know what?... The last time I checked... college football
players don't play for money... they play for exposure and championships.
The MWC has neither thanks to the Craig Thompson/CSTV/Comcast/MTN agreement.
The best move for BYU and Utah as far as the MWC is concerned is to LEAVE! It would be a step in the right direction to go back to the WAC, or if possible, get into the PAC-10. Nobody watches MWC football anymore (it's not available!) The MWC is a non-issue in college football discussions... well, that's not exactly true.. it's on the same level as Sunbelt conference (Craig Thompson's former conference), Division II, Division III, and is it still called the NAIA?
So.. as far as MWC expansion is concerned.. I doubt that anyone is interested. Well, maybe Utah State, Weber State, Southern Utah State, and UVSC. Hey, there ya go!... At least you fans in Utah could watch all the games on TV! You just wouldn't want to venture outside of the state and start talking about your teams... cuz nobody would care.
It's sad, but if BYU, Utah, & TCU are going stand by and watch Craig Thompson take the MWC down to Division III... then they deserve all the notariaty that they are going to get. I know that the LDS players here in Washington have begun to shun BYU and Utah in favor of PAC-10 teams... just so that they will be in a program that matters and to play football for a school that has games that people actually watch.
The best move for BYU and Utah as far as the MWC is concerned is to LEAVE! It would be a step in the right direction to go back to the WAC, or if possible, get into the PAC-10. Nobody watches MWC football anymore (it's not available!) The MWC is a non-issue in college football discussions... well, that's not exactly true.. it's on the same level as Sunbelt conference (Craig Thompson's former conference), Division II, Division III, and is it still called the NAIA?
So.. as far as MWC expansion is concerned.. I doubt that anyone is interested. Well, maybe Utah State, Weber State, Southern Utah State, and UVSC. Hey, there ya go!... At least you fans in Utah could watch all the games on TV! You just wouldn't want to venture outside of the state and start talking about your teams... cuz nobody would care.
It's sad, but if BYU, Utah, & TCU are going stand by and watch Craig Thompson take the MWC down to Division III... then they deserve all the notariaty that they are going to get. I know that the LDS players here in Washington have begun to shun BYU and Utah in favor of PAC-10 teams... just so that they will be in a program that matters and to play football for a school that has games that people actually watch.
Ratman | 2:43 p.m. Aug. 10, 2007
Houston, Just a couple of comments to your posting:
1) I was referring to your other sports, not football. Going 12-0 against MWC teams over the past few years is a great accomplishment, and you should be understandably proud. However, you might or might not be able to sustain that if you were competing against MWC teams week after week, especially after losing that great senior class. And, as I explained to Fred, it's going to come down to money, not competitiveness, IF the MWC ever considers expansion.
2) The TV deal is a horrible mess. You won't get much disagreement from any MWC fan. I do have to point out, though, that the $82 million deal with CSTV is a bit better than the $7 million the WAC has with ESPN/ABC, and was much better than what ESPN was offering the MWC as a renewal.
3) "Some supporters" of C-USA might think they're the premiere "mid-major" right now. Unfortunately for them, they were hurt immemsely when the "Big Least" stole Louisville, Cincinnati & S. Florida. Look at the schools in UH's division right now - Tulsa, Rice, SMU, UTEP & Tulane. With the exception of Tulane, the MWC was formed to get away from those schools, which were all part of the old WAC. The MWC has already demonstrated its capacity to take from the C-USA when it added TCU, and could probably take UH if it chose.
Now, having said all that, yes the MWC isn't as attractive nationally as it was a few years ago. All of that will ebb and flow, not only for the MWC but for all the "mid-majors." If our schools are in the WAC, MWC, C-USA, Mid-American or Sunbelt, face it. We're second-class citizens. Unless the college landscape changes, we'll be left fighting for the scraps left by the "big boys."
1) I was referring to your other sports, not football. Going 12-0 against MWC teams over the past few years is a great accomplishment, and you should be understandably proud. However, you might or might not be able to sustain that if you were competing against MWC teams week after week, especially after losing that great senior class. And, as I explained to Fred, it's going to come down to money, not competitiveness, IF the MWC ever considers expansion.
2) The TV deal is a horrible mess. You won't get much disagreement from any MWC fan. I do have to point out, though, that the $82 million deal with CSTV is a bit better than the $7 million the WAC has with ESPN/ABC, and was much better than what ESPN was offering the MWC as a renewal.
3) "Some supporters" of C-USA might think they're the premiere "mid-major" right now. Unfortunately for them, they were hurt immemsely when the "Big Least" stole Louisville, Cincinnati & S. Florida. Look at the schools in UH's division right now - Tulsa, Rice, SMU, UTEP & Tulane. With the exception of Tulane, the MWC was formed to get away from those schools, which were all part of the old WAC. The MWC has already demonstrated its capacity to take from the C-USA when it added TCU, and could probably take UH if it chose.
Now, having said all that, yes the MWC isn't as attractive nationally as it was a few years ago. All of that will ebb and flow, not only for the MWC but for all the "mid-majors." If our schools are in the WAC, MWC, C-USA, Mid-American or Sunbelt, face it. We're second-class citizens. Unless the college landscape changes, we'll be left fighting for the scraps left by the "big boys."
Fred | 9:40 p.m. Aug. 10, 2007
Ratman, I thought this was a place to post opinions, am I right? First of all,
if you read my first post I stated that I was a faithfull Ute fan and have been
for many years. Second, I didnt know you were my mom, trying to make sure I say
nice things. It could get alot worse but for conversation sake and not really
knowing who you are and this being an internet message board I will keep it
light. Lastly, you say that expansion is based soley on the dollars that this
school could possibly bring in with the TV market they are in. I would have to
completly disagree with you (respectfully ofcourse). Im not saying money doesnt
play a role, I just think that you are looking at money coming in a different
manner. I am in the mindset that if a team can succeed year after year and is
building a winning tradition than the money will come in. Case and point being
BSU winning the Fiesta Bowl and getting all of there conference counterparts a
share of the BCS money. Not to mention that Im sure there is going to be a
bigger following in regards to fans around the country watching just for pure
enjoyment and having a soft spot in thier hearts for a team that won the Fiesta
bowl in a dramatic manner. I really dont think Houston or any other non BCS
team in a big city tv market could bring the excitement and quality of team that
Boise state brings to the table, which in the long run or maybe not so long will
bring in those dollars that you are talking about. Its kind of like creative
financing, you have to think outside the box.
mcmd | 6:57 a.m. Aug. 11, 2007
Utah State would be excellent, except for it's abysmal football team.
g | 8:39 a.m. Aug. 11, 2007
I think Boise recognizes that there are better, more established programs in the
MWC.
The NCAA has rules in place now that you have to average 15,000 tickets sold per game over a two year rolling period or you loose your D-1A status. The WAC has three schools (L Tech, Idaho, and Utah State) who didn't make the cut last year and are in danger of dropping. What does the WAC do if it looses 1 or 2 or 3 members? Get North Texas to replace them?
Also, just look at attendance numbers: in 2006 MWC teams averaged 32,600. The WAC averaged 22,000. (CUSA was 26. And while the fans may like seeing the Broncos on ESPN, they get paid pitifully. The WAC recently broke off talks with them to look for something else. Something that pays better. Something exactly like what the MWC has.
But as far as the MWC being the gateway to the BCS, here's the situation (from bcsfootball.org):
The standards will be based on results from the 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 regular seasons, using institutions that are members of the conferences during the 2007 season.
The data will include the following for each conference
(1) the ranking of the highest-ranked team in the final BCS standings each year,
(2) the final regular-season rankings of all conference teams in the computer rankings used by the BCS each year and
(3) the number of teams in the top 25 of the final BCS standings each year.
Here is how the conferences stack for data points numbered 1 and 3, added after 3 of the 4 years.
..avg Highest-Number of teams in the polls
SEC-----2.33--5
Pac 10--3.67--3.33
Big 10--4.67--4.33
Big XII-7.33--4
BigEast-7.33--2.33
MWw/BSU-7.33--1.67
ACC-----12----3.67
Mt West-15.3--1
As you can see, together, they are about tied with the Big East (even with their big season last year).
When the Big East added Louisville in 2004, the only other Big East team that was ranked was Pitt (who Utah remembers wasn't very good). The BCS counted Louisville's 20004 year in CUSA toward the Big East for the BCS numbers. They couldn't very well count the Louisville's for the Big East and not Boise's for the mountain west ... we'll they probably could, they're the BCS.
The NCAA has rules in place now that you have to average 15,000 tickets sold per game over a two year rolling period or you loose your D-1A status. The WAC has three schools (L Tech, Idaho, and Utah State) who didn't make the cut last year and are in danger of dropping. What does the WAC do if it looses 1 or 2 or 3 members? Get North Texas to replace them?
Also, just look at attendance numbers: in 2006 MWC teams averaged 32,600. The WAC averaged 22,000. (CUSA was 26. And while the fans may like seeing the Broncos on ESPN, they get paid pitifully. The WAC recently broke off talks with them to look for something else. Something that pays better. Something exactly like what the MWC has.
But as far as the MWC being the gateway to the BCS, here's the situation (from bcsfootball.org):
The standards will be based on results from the 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 regular seasons, using institutions that are members of the conferences during the 2007 season.
The data will include the following for each conference
(1) the ranking of the highest-ranked team in the final BCS standings each year,
(2) the final regular-season rankings of all conference teams in the computer rankings used by the BCS each year and
(3) the number of teams in the top 25 of the final BCS standings each year.
Here is how the conferences stack for data points numbered 1 and 3, added after 3 of the 4 years.
..avg Highest-Number of teams in the polls
SEC-----2.33--5
Pac 10--3.67--3.33
Big 10--4.67--4.33
Big XII-7.33--4
BigEast-7.33--2.33
MWw/BSU-7.33--1.67
ACC-----12----3.67
Mt West-15.3--1
As you can see, together, they are about tied with the Big East (even with their big season last year).
When the Big East added Louisville in 2004, the only other Big East team that was ranked was Pitt (who Utah remembers wasn't very good). The BCS counted Louisville's 20004 year in CUSA toward the Big East for the BCS numbers. They couldn't very well count the Louisville's for the Big East and not Boise's for the mountain west ... we'll they probably could, they're the BCS.
Brad | 8:17 a.m. Aug. 12, 2007
The conference should stay at 9 unless they can get a team from a larger market.
BSU has been successful in football. They remind me of the old BYU. The new BYU
will crush them. Until you have played on the smurf turf you don't know
what I am talking about. Those guys play out of their skins in Boise. Let's
bring them to Provo on a normal year... rather than a down year like last time
and see what happens. If they were to join the MWC they would have their ups and
downs just like everyone else. Last year was awesome. BSU Rocked. It won't
go on forever in Boise.
While part of the WAC we tried the large conference. It was not good.
Stick with where we are. I feel way too much panic in your discussions.
While part of the WAC we tried the large conference. It was not good.
Stick with where we are. I feel way too much panic in your discussions.
Dave in SLC | 12:57 p.m. Aug. 12, 2007
mcmd: Utah State would make a MUCH BETTER addition to the Big Sky conference
than the MWC. Utah State in all reality should look at dropping to division
1-AA.
dawg_24 | 8:31 p.m. Aug. 13, 2007
yea and we could call it the MounTen!! ha ha ha. Actually I'm against
getting Boise St. in with us, since we've screwed the WAC and Karl Benson
enough already. What we should do is set up a MWC#1 vs WAC#1 in the Las Vegas
Bowl. Can you imagine BYU (the former WAC bully) vs. Boise St. (new dawg in
town)? Or how about TCU's incredible defense vs. Hawaii's high octane
offense. That is what we should demand.
Trent | 6:54 a.m. Aug. 15, 2007
I don't really think the MWC would be any better by adding a tenth team.
However, if three teams could be added to create North/South or East/West
divisions then things would work out better as a twelve team conference. This
is precisely the reason so many conferences have gone this way thus far. I know
this is a long shot, but adding Colorado, Arizona, Arizona State, and Boise
State would create a truly "mountain west" conference that would last
for many years to come. The Pac 10 could take SDSU.
The more likely scenario would involve BYU and Utah/SDSU moving to the Pac 10 to create a twelve team conference.
While the first scenario is my favorite, I believe the second is closer at hand.
The more likely scenario would involve BYU and Utah/SDSU moving to the Pac 10 to create a twelve team conference.
While the first scenario is my favorite, I believe the second is closer at hand.
Jim Fletcher | 3:45 p.m. Aug. 18, 2007
If the Big 10(11?) does expand by adding a 12th team, then the Mountain West
Conference may look to add more than just one team. Let's assume, for
example, that Stewart Mandel from Sports Illustrated is correct, and the Big 10
expands to twelve teams by adding Nebraska. This would mean that the Big 12
would look for a north division replacement. It seems obvious to me that aside
from Arkansas, which probably wouldn't leave the SEC and provides no
academic prestige, the new addition to the Big 12 would be a current MWC school.
It also seems that Utah would be the most obvious candidate. It's a
large, prominent, state-funded, academically-oriented school with a well-rounded
athletic department (just like Texas, Texas A&M, Colorado, Kansas, and
perhaps Oklahoma). While Nebraska also fits this mold, we're assuming they
would be plucked by the Big 10. Utah would have a lot to offer the Big 12.
First, despite the fact that it's not an AAU member, it is ranked in the
top 100 universities according to U.S. News and World Report. Second, it would
provide exposure from another state. Adding Colorado State would not bring a
new state into the mix. Also, Utah has had quite a bit of football and
men's basketball success in recent years, and the Utes would provide a
plethora of successful lower-profile sports teams to the Big 12. Of course, BYU
would provide many of the same things as Utah, but I think the fact that Utah is
a state school would give it an advantage over BYU. After all, despite recent
national championships in men's tennis and women's basketball, the
Baylor "experiment" hasn't worked out tremendously well over the
last 11 years. Perhaps Utah will become a Big 12 member in the future.
Ratman | 12:00 p.m. Aug. 20, 2007
Jim, As you are no doubt aware, the Big 10 has still been holding out for Notre
Dame. Up till now, the Big 10 has shown great patience in trying to snag the
Irish. This strategy might have worked if Notre Dame's program had
continued to flounder. Unfortunately, as long as Notre Dame can continue to ink
its own network t.v. deals and go to BCS bowls without having to share $$$ with
other conference schools, it will continue to do so, meaning they will stay
independent. ND's improvement over the past two years makes it more likely
that nothing will change for some time to come.
So, the Big 10 would have to lose its patience and add a 12th school without adding ND. Nebraska would seem a logical choice. However, the Big 10 still could look east and take Pitt, Syracuse or West Virginia from the "Big Least." Sometimes politics overrules logic (see VT going to the ACC instead of Syracuse).
There are a lot of "if"s for Nebraska (or maybe Missouri) to join the Big 10, but if it were to happen, I agree that it would makes things most interesting out west, because a spot for a MWC school in the Big 12 would be available.
Also, if the PAC-10 were to add Colorado, it would open another spot in the Big-12, and probably another in the PAC-10 because the PAC-10 would most likely add two schools. Thus, 2 spots in the Big-12 and one in the PAC-10 might open up for Utah, BYU and another MWC or WAC institution.
So, the Big 10 would have to lose its patience and add a 12th school without adding ND. Nebraska would seem a logical choice. However, the Big 10 still could look east and take Pitt, Syracuse or West Virginia from the "Big Least." Sometimes politics overrules logic (see VT going to the ACC instead of Syracuse).
There are a lot of "if"s for Nebraska (or maybe Missouri) to join the Big 10, but if it were to happen, I agree that it would makes things most interesting out west, because a spot for a MWC school in the Big 12 would be available.
Also, if the PAC-10 were to add Colorado, it would open another spot in the Big-12, and probably another in the PAC-10 because the PAC-10 would most likely add two schools. Thus, 2 spots in the Big-12 and one in the PAC-10 might open up for Utah, BYU and another MWC or WAC institution.
Jim Fletcher | 7:21 p.m. Aug. 20, 2007
You're right, Ratman. I thought Notre Dame might go ahead and join the Big
10 until Charlie Weis turned things around in South Bend over the past couple of
years. Now I don't see that happening in the next decade or more. Thus,
Big 10 expansion may occur with another school.
I think the Big 10 would be crazy to choose Pittsburgh, Syracuse, or some other eastern school when they could get Nebraska instead. Let's face it, Nebraska would be an excellent fit in the Big 10 (just like it is in the Big 12). Also, the Big 12 would be fine without the Huskers. I mean, the Big 12 would definitely "take a hit" with a Nebraska defection, but the conference would be fine with Texas, Oklahoma, and Texas A&M in it.
I sure would hate to see Colorado go, but I realize it's a possibility. At least the north divison (without Nebraska and possibly Colorado) would still have one solid football program in Kansas State. The loss of Nebraska and Colorado would make it crucial to find suitable replacements. I think Utah would be the Big 12's first choice, and Colorado State would be their second choice (if Colorado left). Without Colorado, you can bet they'd replace the Buffaloes with CSU to maintain a presence in that state.
It's tough to say for sure, though. I mean, there are so many factors (geography, academics, prestige, money, politics, televsion, etc.) involved in these choices. Sometimes logic doesn't hold true. If this scenario (or one like it) occurred, it seems as though the remaining MWC schools would combine with the WAC schools to form one conference.
This is a hot topic now. I'm a UT-Austin (Longhorn) graduate, and we're discussing it down here in Texas. Hook 'em Horns!
I think the Big 10 would be crazy to choose Pittsburgh, Syracuse, or some other eastern school when they could get Nebraska instead. Let's face it, Nebraska would be an excellent fit in the Big 10 (just like it is in the Big 12). Also, the Big 12 would be fine without the Huskers. I mean, the Big 12 would definitely "take a hit" with a Nebraska defection, but the conference would be fine with Texas, Oklahoma, and Texas A&M in it.
I sure would hate to see Colorado go, but I realize it's a possibility. At least the north divison (without Nebraska and possibly Colorado) would still have one solid football program in Kansas State. The loss of Nebraska and Colorado would make it crucial to find suitable replacements. I think Utah would be the Big 12's first choice, and Colorado State would be their second choice (if Colorado left). Without Colorado, you can bet they'd replace the Buffaloes with CSU to maintain a presence in that state.
It's tough to say for sure, though. I mean, there are so many factors (geography, academics, prestige, money, politics, televsion, etc.) involved in these choices. Sometimes logic doesn't hold true. If this scenario (or one like it) occurred, it seems as though the remaining MWC schools would combine with the WAC schools to form one conference.
This is a hot topic now. I'm a UT-Austin (Longhorn) graduate, and we're discussing it down here in Texas. Hook 'em Horns!
turbochargers for a 1987 celica | 12:12 p.m. Sept. 6, 2007
style tv address style tv address, trash pump wacker trash pump wacker, jimmy
turbocharger jimmy turbocharger, goo experiments goo experiments, similarities
and differences in leadership styles similarities and differences in leadership
styles, name goo goo dolls name goo goo dolls, spiral croton plant spiral
croton plant, zeytinia croton zeytinia croton, max eastman amp max eastman
amp, john deere weed wacker john deere weed wacker,
Phil | 1:25 a.m. Oct. 3, 2007
I think adding 3 more teams, so you could have a conference championship is the
best choise if you are going to add. It would have been better if we would have
never added TCU in the first place.
Jimmy Sneakers | 2:03 a.m. Oct. 3, 2007
Jimmy thinks a Thursday - Saturday road trip in B-ball still takes 2 class days.
2=2
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
- RSL will play for MLS Cup tonight 3:06 a.m.
- Jazz outlast Pistons in overtime 3:06 a.m.
- Utah Utes whip SDSU 3:05 a.m.
- BYU records with win 3:05 a.m.
- RSL dancing with soccer stars 3:04 a.m.
- Cougars turn focus to dreaded rivals 3:04 a.m.
- Dixie State campus briefs 3:03 a.m.
- Weber State campus briefs 3:02 a.m.
- UVU campus briefs 3:01 a.m.
- BYU campus briefs 2:59 a.m.
- Glenn Beck to enter politics?
- Can BYU throw vs. Air Force?
- Police link alcohol to murder
- Huntsman blasts media over trip
- Cougars cruise to victory in Hawaii
- Christian leaders not backing down
- BYU records with win
- TCU still has a chance
- Orem man acquitted in tot's death
- Religion cited in deportation fight
- Buttars wants to limit gay rights laws
192 - Palin plans tour stop in Utah173
- Glenn Beck to enter politics?129
- Palin's book shows she's unqualified122
- Officer cleared in Cardall Taser case103
- BYU cuts Women's Research Inst.100
- Jazz finally win in San Antonio98
- BYU records with win95
- Utes knock off rival Aggies93
- Huntsman pleased with Obama87
 |
Football Final | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | T |
| Falcons | ||||||
| Cougars |
Latest comments
Beck is extremely smart, he is selling books and is very popular on TV. All...
@Mick, the Federal Govt is run by corporations through contributions and...
Lets bond together and hope for a REAL celebration SUnday night, can hardly...
I was on the playground too and some teachers came out and called us all to...
B.Y.U. has been a consistent a top 25 ranked winner under Max Hall. Hall has...
Did Timp win four in a row or 4 in 4 years?
You have a lot of growing up to do, It seems like you have not cxperienced...
The proposed ethics law puts roughly the same burden on a legislator that a...
Hall ACTUALLY broke the all timme wins record vs WYO last week. I guess...
Sounds to me like Kraig Powell may be a candidate for resignation. So long,...
Advertisements
The full round-robin schedule in football gives you a true champion.
In basketball, you get travel partners and a 10 team conference tournament. (That means they could finally eliminate the ridiculous 8-9 play-in game)
Adding a 10th member makes a lot of sense. That's exactly why I don't think the Mountain West would do it.