Comments about ‘MWC football notebook: Mountain West a conference of haves, have-nots’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Oct. 30 2008 12:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
What does MWC stand for?

Much Worse Conference...LIKE...EVER!!!!

RE: Boise State Fan @ 1:13

Just a question about the Sagarin ratings. Just what precisely do those points mean in real-world terms? If you can't explain that, you don't have a logical basis for arguing any conference is "closer" to any other--because you don't know whether those ratings figures are actually capable of supporting that particular argument. (Yes, I DO have a background in statistics and measurement. Thanks for asking.)

My suggestion: You're better off sticking to the rankings alone. Just a few thoughts.

Re: Bigger Picture

You're arguing with more people than you think. I didn't say all of those things. I'm merely trying to point out to you that the MWC is a better conference competitively this year than the WAC. No contest. End of story.

Pac-10 amigo...

The MWC is having a solid year, no doubt about that. My intention was just to curb some enthusiasm by providing a little bit different perspective. Would you have said the same things about the MWC last year? Maybe, but I doubt it. Could you have said those same things about the WAC last few years? I think so. Maybe not about the bottom of the conference, but definately about Boise, Fresno, and Hawaii. Is the MWC better than the WAC this year? I think so. However, over time they have been, and always will be, essentially the same. One year one is better, the next year it switches. Sometimes one league holds on for a couple of years. I'd hold off before saying that the UNLV win over ASU is the reason that the MWC is better than the WAC. I'm not so much trying to discredit or downplay the MWC (although it may have seemed that way in order to prove a point) as I am trying to give the WAC some credit. Good job MWC, but also good job WAC. As a Pac-10 fan it is good to have other West Coast Conferences be nationally competitive.

Re: Re: Boise State Fan

You're not understanding how Sagarin comes up with his ratings. The MAC and Conference USA or not 'up' because of one respective team in each conference. Sagarin rates more on the middle teams to assess overall conference strengh, in order to avoid elite teams from skewing an overall rating. Why else would the SEC be considered fourth? Especially since so many national pundits will say it is the toughest conference? Because the bulk of the conference is in the middle to bottom of the CFB pack. How could the ACC be so high considering they only have one team in the top 20? Because they are closely lumped together and have few very poor teams. So when comparing the WAC and MWC, why is there a five point difference? Because the MWC is much more top heavy with teams like Utah, TCU and BYU, whereas the WAC only has Boise. And then you see the bottom dwellers, although comparable to the MWC, still drag the WAC down further.


RE: Re: Bigger Picture | 2:55 p.m. Oct. 30, 2008

Thank you for you definitive opinion. Tell all the voices inside your head thanks as well. You must also be a ventriloquist if you did not say all those things. Either that or the dummy.

Re: Intimidation

Hahaha! You're hilarious! You should take the show on the road! Obviously I'm incapable of convincing someone even of the nose on their face so I guess that's my problem. Oh well! I'll just admit defeat and say the WAC is just as good as the MWC this year, no doubt about it, and I'll ignore the existence of those Utah States and Idahos and Louisisan Techs and New Mexico States et. al. Yeah, they don't exist! Therefore the WAC rules!!!

Imaginary friends

Awsome friend!! You can ignore them along with those Wyomings and SDSUs and UNLVs and New Mexicos--all teams in the MWC with overall losing records.

I never said the WAC was as good as the MWC this YEAR. The MWC is having a better YEAR. That is not the first time I have posted that either. You have been hearing what you want to hear and misrepresenting my position. Are you a politician? I am saying that the mtn is not better than the WAC. It is not the same WAC that those schools left. It is better. I think the MWC is good. I think the WAC is the same.

It is my position that the two conferences need each other. If the mtn supremacists would realize this and stop putting the WAC down then together they could have a powerful voice. Instead they have to play the school bully and feel better about not being a BCS conference by picking on other non-BCS conferences.

I also believe that it is in the Pac-10's interest to have good teams in the west. They will never break with the BCS talking points, but they need to overcome east.

Re: Imaginary Friends

You say that it's up and down each year between the two? How about a 4 year average to determine which conference is better? A compilation of 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007? That's what the BCS looks at to determine which conferences deserve a BSC Bowl Automatic Qualification. Who comes out ahead? You guessed it, the MWC. Here's the official word on the BCS standards:

"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."

Des News doesn't allow enough space here to show the calcualtions for all 4 years for both conferences but if you don't believe me, go ahead and crunch the numbers yourself. I'll try to put together a quick and dirty comparison and post it later.

The standard bearer...

That's just fantastic, let's turn to the BCS for all of our answers because they seem to have them, don't they?! How's that going for you? I hate polls and I hate the BCS. We need playoffs! That is beside the point...

So you look at all of these BCS "standards" to see which conference the BCS says is better. Let's look at the teams actually in the BCS bowls:
2004-Utah, the original Buster
2005-no mtn or WAC team
2006-Boise State, one of the greatest bowl games ever
2007-Hawaii-an admitted flop, but they made it to the bowl.

So over your time period the WAC has sent two teams to the BCS and the MWC has sent one. Actions speak louder than words. According to your "standards" the MWC should have sent its champion regardless because "that's what the BCS looks at to determine which conferences deserve a BSC Bowl Automatic Qualification"

I must again reiterate that I am for both the MWC and the WAC. They are both good conferences. There is not much difference. Lay off the supremacy. Let's be one voice so we can no just bust the BCS, but tear down the BCS!

Sagarin Conference Rankings?

Did anybody else notice that the Sagarin Conference rankings above indicated that the ACC was ranked ahead of the SEC? I realize they are ranking the conference as a whole, and not just the best teams, but you've got to be kidding me.

Oh, and combined, the MWC is 42-31, while the WAC is 34-35, and the MWC is enjoying a 3-2 record against the WAC this year.

Real Stats

As a non fan to either conference after a quick check against bcs teams, MWC is 8-4 and the Wac is 3-11. Clearly theres no need for an discussion.

The Wac might toot their horn to more bcs bids, but they have always had the weaker conference since the start of the mwc 10 years ago. The Hawaii bid last year, was more of a travesty than anything else. How you reward a non-bcs team a bid after playing in a bad conference than playing 2 d2 teams is beyond any sort of logic for a reward.

The mwc top half is pretty legit if not better with their top half compared to the top half of the pac10, overated east, and acc. The conference as a whole no. Just like the bottom of the wac really dilutes Boise's wins, the Mwc bottom half dilutes itself compared to other bcs conferences.


The MWC was designed to provide BYU with easy wins.

Easy wins keep the faithful happy.

re: UNLV

I would agree with that. Maybe even 2nd place in the PAC 10!

re: Really

I disagree. Those Washington teams are extremely bad.


If that was the case, BYU would have easy wins. They haven't. That close call with UNLV is an excellent example!

re: Really...REALLY?!?!?

I definitely disagree with that contention. UNLV beat Arizona State who has won at least one conference game. Washington and Washington State haven't done that!

re: Big brother to the rescue?

Yeah, the PAC 10 is that bad! OSU is currently tied for 2nd place with California. Oregon and USC are tied for first place. Oregon is crappy. They will unquestionably lose again. We are talking a team that has struggled against Perdue. I think Boise State is good, so I won't complain about your loss to Boise State.

RE: Pac-10 amigo

I see your point in the year-in and year-out observations, and that's the logic (such as it is) behind the BCS conferences' claim to deserve the big-money bowl bids. Yes, this year the MWC is head-and-shoulders above the WAC, and who's to say 5 years from now that won't change? So largely agreed.

Still understand, though, the point with UNLV beating ASU (and thanks for the Nevada beating Northwestern example--at least I think that was you)--it's evidence of the parity that's crept into college football. That's a long-term trend, too. The SEC and Big 12 are still pretty dominant. But the Big Ten (should have included them in that previous list), Pac-10, and ACC aren't as much. The Big Least hasn't been a true football power conference for several years--either the MWC or the WAC could take them.

Good to see increased competition, in any case.

re: Uh, Pac-10 Big Brother

You act like TCU or Utah can't beat USC. I say they can. OSU beat them, and I say both those teams can as well!

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments