Comments about ‘Mike Sorensen: MWC expand? Get rid of deadweight’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, Nov. 16 2009 12:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Frozen Chosen

That works for me. The only potential change I would make to your suggestion is to keep Colorado State. They have a good chance of being a solid football program once again and there are a lot of TV sets in Colorado. I don't think too many tears would be shed for New Mexico and Wyoming. They can join the WAC where they belong.

Going to 12 teams would be a mistake - look at what happened to the WAC.

soakblue

Sorenson, they tried this in the 1990s with the mega-WAC expansion. It was a bust! More does not equal better. Indeed, less is actually more. Every league needs bottom feeders; New Mexico, Wyoming, and UNLV perform those roles well, while at the same time beating the occasional BCS team (Arizona, Tennessee, and ASU in the past couple years). I think the status quo is the best course!

Are You Nuts?

What about loyalty and committment? The schools that broke away from the WAC to form the MWC have - for the most part - a long history together. They have been together since the old Skyline Conference days. Plus they committed significant money to create the TV network that they own part of.

Perhaps most important is that sports programs are cyclical. Not always up, not always down. Remember not too long ago SDSU was in the top tier of the WAC in football.

Boise State is a glorified DIA school in everything but football. How long do you think they will be a football powerhouse? (Until their coach leaves for a bigger paycheck!)

The MWC is doing the correct thing. Require the weak sisters to get better. That is happening right now - note SDSU in recent weeks. Show some class and some loyalty by requiring the other teams to improve - but don't kick them out. If they don't cut it after a few more years, then other options may be worth considering.

But amongst quality people, loyalty is important and these schools have plenty of history together to justify the loyalty.

The Truth

Why add Sand Diego or UNLV? If you are adding programs becase they have been good in basketball, then add USU. They have won the WAC bb title two years now and are picked to win it a third time. With the addition of Gary Anderson and the facility improvements I expect their football to be much better than SDSU and UNLV and at least on par with Nevada.

USU?!?

USU? Nice, can I stop laughing yet? They would definatly add some respect to the MWC, while we're at it could we please add Weber St? Coach Mac could help legitimize our conference too! Maybe Dixie and Snow just for the travel consderations, you know during the BBall season. Thanks for that, I feel much better now!

Agreed

I agree with the truth.. Utah state should be in the talk of MWC expansion. I'm biased cuz I'm from Utah and some schools around the conference might not agree but they would be better than the bottom of the existing MWC.
Personally I think the expansion would be better than contraction to eight teams. Football conference championship games bring in BIG money! And thats what most of the BCS talk is about..some respect, but mostly money..

the truth about expansion

Expanding is good. I love when people go back to wac expansion. Smu,rice, la tech, san jose, not the best teams to add. Boise,Nevada,Fresno, are good teams to strengthen your conference.

Not Again

Several reasons why this shouldn't, or couldn't work.

Conferences are not just for athletics. Part of the reason BYU will never be in the PAC 10 is due to the perception of the PAC 10 president's/schools of BYU's academics as clearly inferior to the PAC 10. In the same vein, BSU aka "Boise school of welding and truck driving" (yes, that's right, a good share of the students at BSU are enrolled in technology/technical programs.) It is highly unlikely the vaunted MWC presidents would consider affiating themselves academically with Boise State Technical College.

In addition, adding the teams you're talking about would not work for the same reason the WAC16 did not work. Adding Houston would not add anything to the scenario as far as Texas exposure. Boise is in Idaho, and there's less people in the entire state than there is in the Salt Lake Valley.

Advertisers want bigger markets than what you're adding. Advertisers get nothing by adding the MWC (the area already gets ESPN, so the MTN continues to be an anchor) BCS is about ad dollars, not competition. Look at the BCS map.

My vote

The obvious one is Boise State. Then I would add SMU which is a real rivalry for TCU and it helps solidify the Dallas-Fort Worth market. My third team to level it out at 12 would be Fresno State.

Neveda doesn't bring anything to Mountain West table. It is a very small market. Houston is geographically too far away.

So the East would be TCU, SMU, New Mexico, Air Force, Colorado State, and Wyoming.

The West would be Boise, Utah, BYU, UNLV, SDSU and Fresno. I would hold the championship game in Las Vegas.

ben

Just to get this straight, your brilliant idea is to drop one of the only four teams to have won a titles. Don't you think it is a bit hasty to drop Colorado State. They did win a bowl game last year. Utah and BYU also had some mediocre season before regaining form

MWC Titles TCU-2 (including this year) CSU-3 BYU-4 Utah-4 Only four teams have won the title, and the knock on the league is that it is top heavy.

D Mack

I agree with the release of UNM to another conference. UNM in the WAC would give them confidence at playing college sports (they lost to their guaranteed-win NMSU this year). Their football program is in total chaos and will need time to correct. A switch with BSU and/or Fresno St with UNM and/or Wyoming would be a move in the right direction.

CSU

The MWC was born at CSU. They are better than half the teams overall in all sports you want to keep or add to the conference. The MWC will do nothing without the approval of CSU>

Re: USU?!?

He's talking about basketball, maybe you didn't pick up on that. Also, he's saying that the football program is looking up and will quite possibly be better than SDSU and UNLV soon, and I don't see that being too far fetched.

SDCougar

Now will you be my friend, BCS??? Listen closely, Sorenson:

IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY; NOT ABOUT THE QUALITY OF THE TEAMS IN THE CONFERENCE!!!

The BCS was invented to shut-out half the Division 1A schools in the country from the big money bowl games. You can juggle the non-BCS conferences all you want to and the BCS will still not cut you a piece of the action. They don't care about quality. Most BCS schools are the same caliber as non-BCS schools. They want to keep the money, publicity, money, glory, money, and highly rated recruits in a select few conferences. So, don't tax your brain with new combinations of non-BCS teams. The BCS conferences will never willingly relinquish all of their benefits. Why should they?

Anonymous

Athletic directors don't care about the programs' academics, only athletics. Plus, BYU's academics are better than Arizona's and Washington State's. The reason BYU will never be in the PAC 10 is because of Sunday play.

yo adrian

I like the 8 team new Mountain west

I remember Mike

He is the one who declared last years Utah football team the best ever out of the State of Utah. There was even a time, sir, that USU had some very good seasons.

That is why he is willing to dump Wyoming and CSU, two teams that have historically done well, but not in the past ten years, which I guessing, is longer that Mr. Sorensen has been following college sports.

The conference has a problem right now with parity, but so does about every other conference. You don't fine tune it every 10 years.

Since you are obviously a Ute homer with Robinson, I have a suggestion about how to spend your time right now. Just sit back, drink your red koolaid, and be prepared to explain away utah's 3rd place finish in football, and bottom of the conference finish in basketball. Let the university President's do their job, and do what is best for the conference.

Silly Quote

Mike Sorenson writes: "As good as it sounds, it would be hard to do. How do you tell three of your fellow conference members to take a hike?"

Obvious answer: YOU DON'T. Conference associations are about LOTS more than football and men's basketball, though they are the most visible and apparently all Sorenson's thought about.

But what about other sports? Colorado State's got strong programs in women's basketball and volleyball--giving them the boot makes the MWC weaker in those sports. And that's not to mention academic similarities, which also figure heavily into the university presidents' decisions.

Universities generally don't throw out the conference baby with the bathwater just to make themselves look better in football. And if they did, there would be sour grapes at best--and potential legal action at worst. If Sorenson doesn't realize that by now, he needs to inform himself. Expansion is an infinitely better option for the MWC than expulsion.

Expansion is Better...

... but not TOO much expansion. That was the problem with the 16-team WAC--way too big and way too weak. If the MWC expands, the number of teams is CAPPED FIRMLY at 12. If it works for the Big 12 and SEC, it could well work for the Mountain West--IF IT ISN'T OVERDONE. The 16-team WAC way overdid it. Keep it at 12, MAX.

My recommendation for adds: Boise State, Utah State (serious--football's a joke FOR NOW, but basketball and some other sports aren't), and Nevada. But others can and will argue with those last two--so let's hear it.

DFW Cougar

No way should we add SMU to the MWC. They would bring absolutely nothing to this conference. TCU doesn't need a rivalry team in the MWC - they already have very strong rivalries with Utah and BYU. You need to know something about the DFW market. Adding SMU to solidify the DFW market is like adding a couple of buckets of water to raise the level of the Great Salt Lake. Adding SMU to the MWC would do less than nothing for the MWC.

to comment

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