Dick Harmon: No need for Boise in fight vs. BCS

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Wyo diehard
    July 30, 2009 11:52 a.m.

    To all of you who think Wyoming or New Mexico should be dumped, maybe you should look beyond the past five years. The 2000's have been bad for Wyoming and New Mexico football, but they were powerhouses in the 90's. Anyone remember when the Cowboys played BYU for the last WAC conference championship, lost in OT, went 10-2 and got snubbed? We had 1-that's right, 1-losing season in the 90's. And let's not forget about New Mexico's run with Brian Urlacher, and we haven't even touched on other sports for either school. The point is, teams go through hot streaks and slumps. The MWC was formed based on the rich rivalries and traditions that all of the members enjoy with each other. They are rivalries that have been around since before Boise had a football program, and they'll be around long after Boise's hot streak ends.

  • Broncodude
    July 29, 2009 10:18 p.m.

    Oh well, guess we will stay where were wanted in the Wacky Wac, go to a BCS bowl every year or two, bring home millions of bucks to our Wac friends. Oh yeah, we Broncos like the Cowboys, stop picking on them.

  • bill25
    July 29, 2009 5:09 p.m.

    I can promise, after the 2011 the MWC will be wishing that they would have added BSU to there conference. Yes I just might have inside information.

  • Berto
    July 29, 2009 4:40 p.m.

    Blah, Blah, Blah... BSU is a one sport school. Heard that one before too. Seems to me that we finished last season only 2 spots behind the Cougs in the Learfield Directors Cup. The only other MWC to place ahead of us was TCU. That means we beat out a lot of MWC schools.

  • Anonymous
    July 29, 2009 2:33 p.m.

    We should ditch Wyoming and San Diego St. then add Boise St. and Nevada. Don't have to split the pie any more than we already do and it provides an immediate upgrade to the conference. We should also ditch the ridiculous Mtn TV contract and get back on ESPN. Boise and Nevada play on ESPN something like 10 times this coming year, that's approximately 100 times the viewer ship of the entire Mtn combined with just those 10 games between those 2 schools.

  • Unknown Fan
    July 29, 2009 2:07 p.m.

    Add BSU and the MWC becomes a default AQ conference. The champ, even a one-loss champ would always be ranked higher than the winners of the other conferences.

  • Bronco4Ever
    July 29, 2009 10:07 a.m.

    To the comment the BYU has always played BSU Tough.. The only MWC team to play BSU tough is TCU. BSU has one close win and one close loss to TCU. The Broncos pretty much tore BYU apart in Provo and did the same to the Utes in SLC.

    However, there is a GREAT potential for rivalry and travel. It is a VERY easy drive from SLC/Provo to Boise and there a TON of BYU/Utah Fans here..

    I loved the atmosphere when either team played here and it was equally good when BSU taveled to BYU and UTAH.

    It seems to be a no-brainer to me. It would be a strong conference with the addition of BSU. But I don't know what all goes into play here.

    I do know that the WAC commisioner (A BSU Grad)is getting uptight with BSU constant lobbying to move to the Mountain West.

  • miked
    July 29, 2009 10:01 a.m.

    "The MWC won't take BSU for money distribution purposes"... That is the exact reason why the MWC conference won't get into the BCS.

    It not a matter of being "good enough", it's about money.

  • BS
    July 28, 2009 3:56 a.m.

    BSU beat BYU during a transition time and the program was down..........BYU did the same thing to Texas so does that mean BYU is better than Texas? BYU fans respect Texas because they understand college football....something BSU people never seem to grasp. Anyway, the two teams will meet soon, so best not run your mouth until then.

  • Fairview Fighter
    July 28, 2009 2:25 a.m.

    Wyoming isn't going anywhere, there are other ways to make it work (like a schedule exception - play 8 of 9 teams each year). As for the EPeen match, the larger body of work by the MWC is vastly superior to that of the WAC. Look at league rankings, look at head to head as a conference, look at bowl records, look at the dozens of BCS teams the MWC has beaten - it's not even close. The WAC is Boise and the 8 Dwarfs.

  • BSU
    July 27, 2009 4:27 p.m.

    You must be talking about the 40 point beat down BYU put on BSU last year in Basketball right? BSU is a one sport college!!!

  • Dumb BYU fans
    July 27, 2009 2:39 p.m.

    BYU always plays Boise tough? The two games have been decided by a combined 78-39 score. Wyoming plays Boise tougher......but who cares about reality when you live in such a freakish state.

  • I would
    July 27, 2009 2:23 p.m.

    dump New Mexico or Wyoming and add Boise State in a heart beat. The conference would be tougher than the big east and getting closer to ACC level. It would be a riviting season and going undefeated would mean a ton. I'm a BYU fan and I am a huge college football fan. It is the greatest sport on earth! As a fan I love to see good football. BYU always plays Boise State tough. I think it would be a great addition. The presidents and commissioner need to wise up!

  • ShowMeBronco
    July 27, 2009 2:10 p.m.

    As an addition to the previous comment. BSU has finally become more agressive in it's OOC scheduling so in 2010 it will play Virginia Tech and Ore St. and finally no Lower Div opponents. It's one of those years when BSU will be senior heavy or at least 3 year starter heavy including a great 3rd year QB. What they do this year will have a great bearing on what they can achieve next year as far as being considered for a Nat. championship game. Do well this year and win against a good team in a BCS bowl, go undefeated again including Va Tech and OR St. Would be tough to keep them out. Same for Utah this year. Repeat the undefeated season this year with wins against Ore and Louisville and that makes a very strong case. It's more than a power conf team would have to do, but once the precedent is set, the door remains open.

    JUST WIN !

  • ShowMeBronco
    July 27, 2009 1:48 p.m.

    The true path to a national champ game for either a WAC or MWC team is to keep doing what they are doing as well as add tougher OOC games. Go undefeated AND beat good teams like Oklahoma and Alabama in high profile games. If we all keep beating the big boys not only in bowls, but in OOC games that give one of us 3 or more high quality wins and at the same time no other team goes undefeated, they are going to have to put one of us in the champ game. UT - beat Ore and Lou.. BYU - beat OK and FSU..TCU - beat VIR and CLEM...BSU - beat ORE and TUL... Fresno - beat WIS, CINN and ILL. Then have an undefeated and one loss team from each conference beat a good team in a good bowl game and pretty soon they HAVE to take notice.


  • blauch
    July 27, 2009 10:45 a.m.

    A non-conference team ranked above the top 12 or if they are ranked above a BCS conference championship team will automatically get a BCS game. Last year 4 teams qualified Utah, TCU, Boise State and BYU. That means one of the 4 teams are guarenteed to make it to a BCS bowl. Yes a 1 lose non BCS team will eventually make it to a bowl game.

    The best thing that could have happened did when TCU beat Boise State. As important as the MWC conference games against BCS schools are - the most important games are the 10 against the WAC.

    The Mountain West needs to beat the WAC.

    A 1 lose MWC team should get the BCS Bid over a undefeated WAC team.

    The MWC playes ACC and Big East 4 games - These are the second most important games. BYU and TCU have to win these games. (Florida State, Virgina, Clemson)

    These are the games that show the MWC 5th best conference in football

    Big 12
    Big 10
    PAC 10
    Big East

    If the MWC can establish 4 or 5 good non BCS years like last year then we have something

  • MWC vs. Wac
    July 27, 2009 10:40 a.m.

    the WAC is on Par with the MWC, Please. Point of fact the MWC went 2 and 0 against the WAC last year in head to head bowl games. The mighty broncos lost to TCU in a good bowl game, but they lost and Colorado St beat Fresno St. BSU is 1 and 4 in their last 5 bowl games. The MWC had 3 teams ranked the in the Final top 25 polls last year and the WAC had 1. Hawaii was embarrassed there on trip to the BCS where Utah has dominated both of their BCS games not winning with three trick plays at the end of a game. BSU is a good team in a week conference! To suggest that Idaho, Utah St and New Mexico st are even on par with the bottom of the Mountain West Conference is a huge joke. UNLV beat Arizona St Last year who did Idaho Beat? Wyoming beat Tennessee last year who did new mexico st beat? BSU would jump at the chance to join the MWC which has been well documented in the Idaho Statesman.

  • YES Boise
    July 27, 2009 10:07 a.m.

    As much as I dislike BSU and think their Smurf turf is despicable I think it would make for some good football games. Of course the MWC schools don't want BSU because we would have the problem of the round robin loss tournament where everybody would beat somebody once...not good for bowl invites. Besides CSU and Airforce will start to increase the competiveness and the big three will have more difficulty outside of Utah and Texas.

  • Arizona Ute
    July 27, 2009 9:32 a.m.

    I agree with Virginia Ute and Oklahoma Ute. I tried to make the same point yesterday, but for some reason it never made it onto this board. It seems to me that the MWC wants to be part of the problem and not the solution. MWC fans used to want all conferences to be automatically represented not a select few. I guess I will now cheer for CUSA.

  • It's ok
    July 27, 2009 8:40 a.m.

    everytime Boise comes to utah they own all the teams anyways!!

  • Despicable Wyo Fan
    July 27, 2009 8:19 a.m.

    Just a question for the "dump Wyoming" crowd. If Wyoming is such a lousy member of the conference, then why did seven other schools decide to bring Wyoming along when forming the MWC? If Wyoming was so unwanted and unloved, then why weren't we left behind in the WAC 10 years ago?

    So a portion of BYU and Utah fans don't like Wyoming, don't like Laramie, think our fan base is nothing but a bunch of hicks, blah blah blah. That's fine. Fact of the matter is Wyoming isn't leaving the conference anytime soon and your team is going to have to come play in Laramie once every other year. Deal with it.

  • Don in Boise
    July 27, 2009 7:55 a.m.

    Every time BSU makes it to a BCS game, it costs the MWC millions of dollars. Thats why BSU will be invited sooner rather then later.

  • One addition makes sense
    July 26, 2009 11:44 p.m.

    It's all about DOLLARS. Fan base in the city and region and recruiting. Texas has one great school and city to add to the MWC and that's Houston. Houston is the fourth most populous city in the nation (trailing only New York, Los Angeles and Chicago), and is the largest in the southern U.S. and Texas. This addition would ADD money to the MWC not cost money - and how about the recruiting.

  • re:Anonymous
    July 26, 2009 11:00 p.m.

    Ah, when was the last time a BYU or Utah beat Boise State?? Not for some time. The WAC over the past 5 years is as good as the MWC and has produced 2 BCS teams as opposed to one from the MWC. Last year the MWC had 3 very good teams (although one could question if BYU was really that good). Boise State has no desire to make a lateral move.

  • berto
    July 26, 2009 11:00 p.m.

    @Anonymous - Boise State fans have heard this argument before. Blah, blah, blah. Because Utah and BYU never play D-1AA schools, right? And SDSU, Wyoming, CSU, UNLV, and UNM are really "quality" opponents.
    BTW - We have Va Tech next year in DC and Oregon State at home.

  • Anonymous
    July 26, 2009 10:05 p.m.

    Anybody ever wonder if the reason BSU has such great seasons, is because they play such quality teams as Nevada, Utah State, Idaho State, etc?

  • Oklahoma Ute
    July 26, 2009 9:25 p.m.

    Agree with Virginia Ute,

    "We sit here and complain about how corrupt, biased, and unfair the current system is, and then we want to become a part of it? That sounds like the kid in elementary school who was always made fun of but then gets a chance to hang out with the cool kids and eagerly dumps his old friends. It's not that the problem has been solved, just that the kid is now on the other side of the coin. And now he's part of the problem."

    Well said. I understand the reasoning the MWC gave in--they said it appeared to be their only choice. We give up a lot by not joining up with the big kids. For example, try to get recruits to come to a conference that refuses to play by BCS rules--not even a chance to get in the big bowls. Yes, great ethical stand, but as mentioned before it really is all about the exposure/money for these athletes, university presidents, etc. It just makes me feel hypocritical. Go MWC?

  • Seattleview
    July 26, 2009 7:53 p.m.

    I am another who thinks that Wyoming should be encouraged to go to the WAC and Boise State could come to the MWC. Wyoming fans would certainly appreciate having a better chance at winning and more success.

    It would, however, make it much harder to go undefeated in the conference. If the MT West conference got an automatic bid Boise State would be invited very quickly.

    Bye Bye Wyoming. It really is a win win.

  • Tyler
    July 26, 2009 7:22 p.m.


    Not a shock... We do not want to add a Great Product to our line up, instead we can watch Suck Dog State, Wyoming High and the Hobos lose over and over and over to both BYU and Utah...

    Why not GREED!

  • Listening
    July 26, 2009 5:30 p.m.

    "For now, the MWC will lead this fight and wade through BCS arrogance with the same roster." sounds like the MWC is doing the same thing as the BCS conferences. Not willing to share their portion of the revenue pie.

  • ADD Boise!
    July 26, 2009 4:02 p.m.

    Having BSC in the MWC is a bad idea because Utah, BYU, and TCU might lose to them. Why doesn't the MWC just add Idaho, New Mexico State, and San Jose State so they don't have to play non.conf. games. The MWC should be way above being afraid of playing people- or did I miss the Alabama game? Thanks Utah for going to Mich and beating ALL your non-conf games. Thanks BYU for taking on OK- TCU for playing anybody. To be one of the top dogs you goota play and every so often beat the top dogs!!!!Boise State with Utah are top dogs the past few years!!! Taking the Hawaii route to a BCS game is a joke to everybody. Strength of schedule in the 140's doesn't make it!! Are you listening Boise. Pack up your bags and move to the MWC so we can see you instead of Weber, and some North Iowa game!!!!!Adding Boise is such a plus I can't believe it hasn't happened. Watching BSC play Utah and BYU every year would be fantastic! Jay

  • re: just me
    July 26, 2009 3:52 p.m.

    "lets start our own national championship for the NONBCS"

    Yeah, right. If a game is on TV and nobody watches, was there really a game?

    The non-BCS teams live in mortal fear that the BCS teams force that very solution on them.

  • re: WAC VS MWC
    July 26, 2009 3:50 p.m.


    "the top half of the WAC is as good or better on a year in and year out basis as the top half of the MWC"


    Whew! Had to catch my breath! That was FUNNY!!!!!!

    Remember when Hawaii went to the BCS bowl and got KILLED by Georgia? THAT was funny, too! Hawaii only went undefeated because its opponents had to fight jet lag. For the first time in memory Hawaii actually beat a couple teams on the road, had a once a century season, and got ROLLED in the bowl.

    WAC "top half better then MWC." I'm going to laugh at that all week!

  • Just Me
    July 26, 2009 3:41 p.m.

    Vote Yes for Boise State and vote No for BCS!
    lets start our own national championship for the NONBCS

    July 26, 2009 3:28 p.m.

    There have been 2 teams from the WAC receive a BCS bid in the past 5 years, and only 1 team (the utes twice) has represented the MWC. While last year the mountain west had 3 superior teams there is a strong case to be made that the top half of the WAC is as good or better on a year in and year out basis as the top half of the MWC. I'm not sure Boise State would want to move if the invitation came there way.

  • Virginia Ute
    July 26, 2009 3:25 p.m.

    Do we really hope that the MWC joins the BCS in 2012? We sit here and complain about how corrupt, biased, and unfair the current system is, and then we want to become a part of it? That sounds like the kid in elementary school who was always made fun of but then gets a chance to hang out with the cool kids and eagerly dumps his old friends. It's not that the problem has been solved, just that the kid is now on the other side of the coin. And now he's part of the problem.
    I know it's guaranteed cash, but I would much rather see the MWC say "no thanks" when the BCS comes calling, waving their money, in 2012. That would really make a statement that the system is the problem and needs to be fixed. It would mean slightly less revenue, but only for a short time until the system gets revamped. Personally, I hope the MWC has the guts to stand up to the BCS in 2012 and say no.

  • Bosie State is
    July 26, 2009 3:25 p.m.

    in. Utah and TCU are out and join the Pac-10. That is what should happen.

  • LoqueID
    July 26, 2009 2:58 p.m.

    Although adding BSU would spread the wealth further in revenue sharing, the biggest MWC economic problems is with the The Mountain/Versus contract. What this network agreement is doing is nothing more than being called shooting yourself in the foot.

    Get out of the contract to a better nationally accessible network(s), then add Boise State. Perhaps with BYU, Boise State would bring in the most market coverage... (no, not from Idaho). They have a huge bandwagon across the nation.

    Perhaps ye low Presidents in your conference might want to consider that.

  • Answer
    July 26, 2009 1:58 p.m.

    How about having MWC vs WAC play at LV two Conferance clash for AUTOMATIC BCS bid? That way no expansion involved to this MWC. And the winner will move on and the loser will shut up!

  • Why
    July 26, 2009 1:56 p.m.

    Why would BSU want this either? They currently get to be top dog in an ESPN conference. They get to be on TV. You can't get that in the MWC.

  • Josh
    July 26, 2009 1:26 p.m.

    The truth is it would hurt the MWC's short-term BCS cause, causing in-conference attrition and therefore fewer undefeated seasons, which is the only thing that seems to draw attention right now.

  • The only
    July 26, 2009 12:52 p.m.

    people in the counry that think the MWC is any better than the WAC are all right here in Utah... The media here have people thinking the MWC is being snubbed- well guess what? Reality check... Your a mid major conference- just like the WAC and you haven't proven anything other than Utah can dominate your sorry conf.

    BTW- "jaxs" Nevada will have a top ten running game this year.
    Any one who thinks the WAC doesn't have better teams than the MWC some years has their head in the sand and they listen to too much moronic utah media homers like harmon. Everone knows he's the biggest BYU homer on the planet!

  • Mike Johnson Fallon NV
    July 26, 2009 11:25 a.m.

    I would love to see the MWC and WAC conference champions play (perhaps on championship weekend) in a "best of the west" bowl, winner with an automatic bid to the BCS and loser to the Las Vegas Bowl.

    Four times in the last five years, a team from one of these two conferences has busted in to the BCS. Time to formalize it. Let the MWC and WAC conference champions play for an automatic bid to the BCS.

  • The point
    July 26, 2009 10:57 a.m.

    I think you are all missing the point here. What Mr. Harmon is trying to say is that addind BSU to the conference is just adding another potential loss to the schedule. Stacking a conference with good teams only works if the rest of the nation acknowleges that your conference is stacked. Sure the competition will be better within our own conference but the outsider looking in will see a bunch of MWC teams beating up on eachother. Teams have to have consistent national respect BEFORE you stack the conference, otherwise it's counter productive. Now if we could persuade a team or two that already has national respect to come away from their BCS conference to form a new conference then that's a different story. Add Oklahoma, USC, Michigan, etc. Than you're in business. Until then it will be a delicate balance between adding more good teams vs letting the few good teams dominate.

  • Anonymous
    July 26, 2009 10:26 a.m.

    Invite BSU and drop either Wyoming or SDSU.

  • Re: Yoda
    July 26, 2009 9:29 a.m.

    Dick Harmon said the following: "No non-BCS conference champion has ever gone to a BCS bowl with a loss. And probably never will."

    Dick Harmon thinks a Non-Automatic Qualifying team (there is no such thing as "non-BCS"--all eleven FBS conferences are part of the BCS) has to be undefeated to be in a BCS game (he didn't say National Championship game.)

    Anonymous correctly pointed out that TCU--with two losses--was #11 in the final BCS standings and would have qualified for a BCS game if there were no Non-AQ teams ranked ahead of them.

    In the post-bowl season polls, TCU was ranked 7th - the highest ranking two-loss team in the country.

    In the near future, I think a one-loss Utah, TCU or even BYU will be in a BCS game - but it would take an undefeated season for a team from any other Non-AQ conference to obtain a BCS Bowl berth.

  • Not Expansion
    July 26, 2009 8:10 a.m.

    This was kind of a narrow-minded article because Mr. Harmon only addressed the expansion issue. At no point did he mention replacing a team instead of just expansion, which he should have done because that makes A LOT more sense.

    Wyoming = OUT
    Boise = IN

    Same number of teams. Same money split. Much better conference.

    SDSU has the biggest TV market in the conference so dropping SDSU makes no sense. New Mexico has been up and down but they are still better than 80% of the WAC. Keep UNLV for their TV market, fan destination, and basketball team.

    The clear choice to drop is Wyoming. Sorry Cowboys. Even if you had great teams you still hurt the conference because of your remote location, tiny TV market, and small fan base.

  • what's up What's Up?
    July 26, 2009 7:51 a.m.

    Did you just say the WAC is a better football conference than the Mountain West?


  • Sports Fan
    July 26, 2009 7:38 a.m.

    I don't know if Harmon has ever been in favor of adding Boise State so this is not unexpected.

    One only had to be at the Utah/BSU game in SLC two years ago to see the fan interest that could be generated when fans can drive back and forth between real rivalries. BSU, Utah, BYU, Wyoming and UNLV are natural rivalries that would have intense fan interest in their games. Full stadiums are better than partly full stadiums. Adding BSU may have a revenue factor as well.

    How about a year when BSU as part of the MWC goes to a BSU bowl because it really is that much better than MWC teams, such as 2006? Then the MWC would get additional money that it would otherwise not receive. You can either see the glass half empty or half full!

  • Directors Cub
    July 26, 2009 7:26 a.m.

    I think Dick Harmon is the only sports fan in the world who believes this Directors Cup is something to keep track of. It's more of a measure of how many sports you play than how well you perform. A school gets the same points for placing in Woman's bowling as they do for Football. Stick to measures that matter Dick.

  • Steve
    July 26, 2009 7:24 a.m.

    To question: I believe if the MWC adds BSU in the final year of the BCS evaluation term, that all of BSU's previous years in the term count for the MWC. I seem to remember a few years ago when the Big East expanded, that Louisville's good years then helped the Big East, even the years when it was in CUSA.

  • What's up?
    July 26, 2009 6:08 a.m.

    I just don't get the MWC? Why would they think that BSU would want in a conference that has had only one team in the BCS when the WAC has had 2 and the spit of $$ is just as good. It's the UTS that should be looking for a better conference.

  • Agree with Henry
    July 26, 2009 5:55 a.m.

    I think trimming Wyoming and other weak schools would do a lot for the MWC. Adding Boise in place of Wyoming only makes sense. Wyoming will never be a premier venue. The weather sucks, the stadium is a joke and absolutly no TV market. Sorry cowboys you should never have left the WAC.

  • Yoda
    July 26, 2009 5:54 a.m.

    Anonymous, I believe he said (or at least meant to say) that no one-loss team would make it to the national championship game.

    I do not expect expansion any time soon. And a reconfiguration to get rid of your weaker teams and add the WAC's best teams is a non-starter.

    While a "Big Four" may not fly, I think that the MWC should do everything possible to strengthen its political resume -- even if it means watering down the money for a time. Ultimately, if it is to be won, this battle will have to be won politically rather than on the field of play.

    Yoda out...

  • Question
    July 26, 2009 4:50 a.m.

    Does anyone know if during the mwc's 4 year evaluation period to get a bcs bid if we add Boise to our league in the final year, would we be able to use their final rankings during that time to count for the mwc? This is the only way I see them joining our league. Leave them in the WAC and let them go undefeated and then invite them in and let the mwc get the credit..

  • Lets be smart
    July 26, 2009 4:24 a.m.

    Why don't they cut one of those programs that rarely have winning seasons like Whyoming, NewMexico or SDSU. I can't believe they are whining about having to play competition. The stronger the conference is the better it is for the MWC. Cut the dead weight.

  • MWC
    July 26, 2009 4:01 a.m.

    I think the only way you make the conference a legitimate powerhouse is to bring some better schools to the table. I think BSU would be a great addition and a great rivalry for all the schools in our conference. I say let them and Fresno in and boot SDSU and WYoming and keep the Rebels for basketball purposes and to host the Las Vegas BOwl.

  • jaxs
    July 26, 2009 12:34 a.m.

    Nevada, Reno are you kidding me they would bring down the conference. I would take UNLV over the cubpack any day

  • RE: Anonymous | 11:50
    July 26, 2009 12:02 a.m.

    Not gonna happen. They just formed the conference 10 years ago to get away from the bloated carcass of the WAC. What kind of a reputation would that build for the teams who break from the MWC to form another? It would convey that they are not able to stick with any commitments and would prefer to act like spoiled children: I'm gonna take my toys home if you don't play how I want you to. The ESPN TV deals would be as bad as they were before the Mtn. Thursday night games were terrible for the fans and the players alike. Do you not remember what it was like in the WAC and before the Mtn?

  • Anonymous
    July 25, 2009 11:50 p.m.

    Instead of BSU joining the MWC why dosnt BSU, BYU, Utah, and TCU along with Fresno, Nevada, Hawaii, and New Mexico form a new conferance with an ESPN TV contract instead of the pathetic mountain network and play that way, a leauge with those teams would be much more likley to receive an automatic BCS bid then the way its set up now.

  • Henry Drummond
    July 25, 2009 11:49 p.m.

    It seems that at least in football we really only have the Big Three and maybe one or two other schools who have the community support to build consistently competitive programs. The Big East managed to get rid of Temple, it seems the MWC could look at doing some trimming and making room for a Boise State.

  • Anonymous
    July 25, 2009 11:37 p.m.

    What are you talking about? No non bcs team will with a loss will ever get into a BCS game? TCU was a 2 loss team and finished #11th going into bowl season. I wouldnt doubt if we see a one loss non BCS team go in the next few year.