Brad Rock: MWC bull's-eye set on Big East

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Utah Mann
    Sept. 24, 2009 9:29 a.m.

    BSU will get an invite, probably this offseason, or the next. The reason they will wait is because it helps the MWC. BSU's record will count in the evaluation of the MWC vs the Big East. Personally, I can't stand the BSU fans, but they would be a great addition to the MWC. One stipulation that Thompson should require of BSU is that they lose the smurf turf, it is embarassing.

    Ultimately BSU will help our conference. I hat to admit it but they are a great team, in a weak conference. Bring them to the MWC and they will consistantly be in the top 3.

    GO UTES Let's have some Cardinal for dinner on Saturday.

  • SportsBiz
    Sept. 24, 2009 8:17 a.m.

    Talk about taking out the Big East all you want but it will happen just about as soon as you will see a 120 team playoff. The Big East encompasses one-fourth of the nation's media markets, including the big one, NYC, and there is absolutely no way the BCS Commissioners and Presidents, the ones who run the thing, are about to let that get away. Remember the BCS was set up to accomplish only two things: maintain control over the bowls and post-season money by the BCS Six conferences and set up a championship game between the number one and two teams at the end of the year. There is no other reason, everything else is just noise.

  • Anonymous
    Sept. 24, 2009 1:28 a.m.

    I really like Chad's idea with adding Houston, Fresno and BSU. Makes alot of sense.

  • Seattleview
    Sept. 23, 2009 11:58 p.m.

    This is exactly what I have said before.

    MWC should add Boise Start and get rid of Wyoming in a deal with the BCS to get an automatic bid. The conference would really improve if they could do that.

  • MWC is a Sad Strange Conference
    Sept. 23, 2009 11:19 p.m.

    And they have my pity.

  • Football Fan
    Sept. 23, 2009 10:24 p.m.

    The focus of the article is how to become a qualifying conference not belittle particular schools. The comments about BSU are a bit difficult to understand. BSU has won ever game but one against MWC opponents and the one loss was by one point with a young team.

    Beginning in 2011 and 2012 both Utah and BYU begin home and away series with BSU. If BSU continues to play well these games could well be a stumbling block for the MWC. It might be better to include them and if BSU were to win in a particular year, the MWC would still be a winner. Otherwise BSU could be a barrier in those future years.

  • Can Utes win?
    Sept. 23, 2009 10:19 p.m.

    The Utes have struggled to beat 2 lower-rung WAC teams and have lost to a mid to lower-level PAC-10 team. I don't seem them walking over Louisville this weekend.

    The only MWC statement game left will be TCU against Clemson.

  • Chad
    Sept. 23, 2009 10:09 p.m.

    I like BSU but do not think they are the answer as the TV market is way to small. TCU was added because they were good but also because Dallas-Fort Worth is a huge market and opened recruiting in Texas, McKay Jacobson and the new LB coming to BYU anyone.

    I think Houston would be a better add to the MWC. Houston is another huge market and has both solid football and basketball programs. If we add 3 teams to get 2 divisions Houston, BSU, and Fresno St would be logical choices. Houston would also give TCU a traveling partner.

    MWC front range
    New Mexico
    Air Force
    Colorado St

    MWC back range
    San Diego St
    Fresno St

    The strenght is in the back range with BYU, Utah, and BSU but the front range is more balanced avoiding MWC celler dwellers UNLV and SDSU.

    Do it on the condition that the winner of a championship game gets an automatic BCS bid(won't happen).

  • Dump Wyoming
    Sept. 23, 2009 5:50 p.m.

    and replace them with BSU. MWC can't dump SDSU because there is too much potential with that program (biggest media market in MWC, best recruiting location etc.)

  • re: Football Civil Rights
    Sept. 23, 2009 4:30 p.m.

    Dude, you did not just compare a second rate conference complaining about the BCS to the civil rights movement, did you?

    Sept. 23, 2009 4:24 p.m.

    Suppose TCU does run the table and BSU. Who goes? Utah and BYU need to hold their weight to help TCU be better. It would seem to make sense to TCU would go as they would have played the better schedule. Good luck TCU the rest of they way!

  • Utes lose
    Sept. 23, 2009 4:18 p.m.

    and BSU is a lock!

  • BSU
    Sept. 23, 2009 3:25 p.m.

    BSU may get exposed in the BCS just like Hawaii was if they make the BCS this year. It could be a mixed bag for BSU, they want to make a BCS game but they also need to make a great showing. BSU is 1-4 in there last 5 bowl games. If BSU takes the easy way out and gets punked like Hawaii did it will set the WAC and BSU back next year. That will only help the MWC, Utah, BYU and TCU if they go 11-1 next year and are faced again with taking another undefeated BSU team. I still think a 1 loss team from the MWC may still have a chance if BSU stumbles this year.

  • AK Cougar
    Sept. 23, 2009 2:09 p.m.

    The Big Easy will always be part of the BCS because of the population in the major TV outlets. The stronger conferences want one equal weakling so they can beat up on them anyway and claim they are tough.

    It all comes down to the revenue generated by TV advertising. The MWC compared against the Big Easy conference in population and TV outlets is huge. The BCS will tweak their qualifying requirements in exclude MWC and WAC so will the revenue and payouts at the BCS games will continue to flow to them.

    The thing I would like to see is the Non BCS conferences gang together and institute their own playoff. In basketball, the NIT used to be the preferred post season tournament. Over time the NCAA tournament gained popularity and is the dominant tournament today.

    Busting the BCS could be done by refusal to include as much as wanting to become one of them. I say to the MWC, let's start a real tourament and exclude the BCS conference teams and crown our own champion.

  • PAC-10
    Sept. 23, 2009 1:59 p.m.

    The MWC will NEVER replace one of the current BCS conferences for an automatic bid. If an automatic bid comes, it will be in addition to the 6 current conferences. If the MWC wants to be the 7th automatic conference, it needs to make a few changes. It needs to dump a couple bad teams and add Boise State and someone else that's good. Also, it obviously needs its teams to perform when the have the chance. BYU and Utah both fired duds at a crucial point in the conference's history. Hopefully TCU and Utah rebound this week or this season's chance to make a statement is done. Even with 2 more wins this weekend against BCS foes, the statement made by the MWC this year has been weak. The other option for is for BYU and Utah to go as a package deal to the PAC-10, giving it enough teams for a playoff--which means more money for the conference. If BYU and Utah got the chance to play in the PAC-10, they would struggle for a while but it would certainly help recruiting. Over time, it's possible that they could compete.

  • It's the money, man
    Sept. 23, 2009 1:47 p.m.

    It isn't the bowls that make BCS special, though they help. It's those big TV contracts that all the conferences get to share in. That's what the BCS is all about.

    If the MWC could generate a good-sized TV contract, the BCS would come calling!!

  • SDSU Trade
    Sept. 23, 2009 1:26 p.m.

    Nah, Wyoming can be decent on occasion. Lets trade SDSU for BSU.

  • The BCS is wrong
    Sept. 23, 2009 12:36 p.m.

    Even if the MWC makes it into the BCS I hope that fans, players, coaches, ADs, and our commissioner will still fight to get rid of the BCS.

  • trade
    Sept. 23, 2009 12:24 p.m.

    yes, why don't we trade Wyoming for BSU?

  • Anonymous
    Sept. 23, 2009 12:22 p.m.

    The truth is that MWC teams schedule and beat teams from BCS conferences all of the time. Since 2003 Utah has played and beat teams such as Cal, USC, UCLA, Oregon State, Arizona, Texas A&M, Pitt, Louisville, Michigan, Georgia Tech, and Alabama. BYU has beat teams such as Oklahoma, UCLA and Arizona. TCU has beat teams such as Oklahoma, and Virgina. Wyoming, one the worst teams in the conference, beat Tennessee,in Tennessee, last year. THE TRUTH is that major teams from BCS conferences are afraid to schedule teams like Utah, BYU, TCU and Boise St. each year because if they don't have to beat good teams to get ranked or move up the rankings. If they go undefeated they get into the national championship despite the fact that they beat no one of consequence. See Ohio State in 2006 and 2007.

  • Idahoan
    Sept. 23, 2009 12:02 p.m.

    Having helmets and uniforms the same color as the field isn't an advantage? By uniforms we're not talking just the jersey, but the pants also.

    I don't know how BSU would do in the MWC. Maybe they would dominate, maybe not. There are WAC teams that hate BSU and get up for the games like MWC teams hate and get up for BYU. The one thing that can be compared, out of conference games, is quite weak for BSU. When the schedule, even the home part, was announced for BSU, there were BSU fans complaining about its weakness.

    If BSU is undefeated this year and a MWC team has only one loss, I would rather any BCS bid go to a MWC team. Before the latest poll, three MWC teams ranked, one WAC team ranked. One big game a year for BSU doesn't cut it. And this year's weak out-of-conference schedule for BSU isn't an exception; it seems to be the rule for their schedule.

  • Boise State
    Sept. 23, 2009 11:07 a.m.

    The MWC have talked to Boise State before, like when TCU was brought in. They really want(ed) to come, too. If I remember right, the main reason they weren't invited was because an even number of schools (10) means an odd number of games, which messes up your home-and-away schedule. Seems trivial to some, but it's important to AD's. So if you go to 10, then you may as well go to 11, then you may as well go to 12 and have divisions. But I can't think of 2 more schools that would help the conference (Fresno State and Hawaii are close, but not enough). So who would you kick out to get Boise State and stay at 9? Remember, this is not just about Football. New Mexico, UNLV, and SDSU make us a better basketball conference than BSU would. Wyoming, I guess.

  • Anonymous
    Sept. 23, 2009 10:51 a.m.

    I think the Big East being given an AUTOMATIC BID each year stinks. This would solve the problem. The highest ranked team from the Big East, Mountain West, WAC or Conference USA should be given the AUTOMATIC BID. I have a hard time seeing Rutgers or Cincinnati get the Big East automatic bid when they are not any better then Boise State, BYU, TCU and Utah. Something to think about.

  • The Truth
    Sept. 23, 2009 10:45 a.m.

    I can't believe the ignorance in Utah (state not school) fans. Did you know that if the MWC meets the criteria they could get in and there could be 7 BCS conferences. It isn't a matter of MWC or Big East. It could be both. Utah (school) beating Louisville doesn't say much because Louisville is horrible, but I'm sure the fans will trot that out as the argument for why the MWC deserves to be in the BCS. Stop your BCS whine. Schedule and beat tougher teams and you will be in and that is.....


  • Blue Turf
    Sept. 23, 2009 9:51 a.m.

    Are you kidding about BSU's blue turf? If it is such a home field advantage perhaps BYU should use blue turf and Utah use red turf. Get real. BSU wins because they are a very good team that is very well coached. Rarely are they unprepared for an opponent,regardless of the conference. Uniform color and turf color have nothing to do with winning consistently. If uniform color mattered Oregon would be undefeated every year as they have 30-40 uniform combinations. BYU and Utah need to quit whinning and just win the big games. BYU looked terrible against FSU and Utah didn't look too much better at Oregon. Before the MWC gets privileges enjoyed by other conferences they need to win consistently and quit moaning every time something doesn't go their way. Cancelling the ESPN contract was the dummest thing the conference could have done. They need nationwide exposure and with the MTN contract they don't even have county wide exposure and highlights of their games are non existent on the national sports shows. Whether you like it or not, BSU has national exposure and MWC teams do not. Dumb, Dumb move by the MWC.

  • just our luck
    Sept. 23, 2009 9:39 a.m.

    I bet the MWC gets that automatic qualifying status away from the Big East in 2012, then by 2014 there will be a playoff. Just our luck!

  • bsu not the answer
    Sept. 23, 2009 9:36 a.m.

    All you whimps need to drop the crapola about bringing bsu into the MWC. We don't need them! The MWC already has two very good teams in BYU and TCU and occassionally one of the other teams also does well. What we actually do need is a better tv deal! I would take that over adding bsu any day! More tv exposure = better recruiting = better teams.

  • Football civil rights
    Sept. 23, 2009 9:20 a.m.

    "If you can't change a club's rules, meet the criteria to get in. Leave the complaining to those that don't."

    Hey Rock have you ever heard of the Civil Rights movement? No? You might want to pull out a history book. As I remember it, the blacks had to do a lot more than than just try to meet the club's rules. It took government action and and the enactment of laws.

    Now we're seeing the same thing with the BCS. It's main influencer was and still is the SEC and I think we've been seeing the Southern elitist attitude all over again. Sure they've loosened up the rules a bit after much outcry and citicism but the AQ conferences still have a huge advantage and they aim to keep it that way.

  • BOISEstate
    Sept. 23, 2009 9:16 a.m.

    Why would Boise State want to leave the WAC? 10 of their 11 games every year are against the equivolent of JuCo teams - thus ensuring patsy schedules every year. A good high school team could compete in the WAC.

  • re: 36-3 ha ha good luck
    Sept. 23, 2009 9:12 a.m.

    Hey mr. simplot or is it mr. simpleton, anyway the potato team guy whose team has mainly beaten other teams that were having down years and then your smurf turf fans brag like they have an NFL team: there's a lot more to it than "all you have to do is invite us". Ha ha ha you must be smoking potatoes, Napolean.

  • Playoff good for all..
    Sept. 23, 2009 9:10 a.m.

    Keep in mind that the BCS discriminates against it's own too. The PAC10 has never had two teams qualify for BCS games in the same year - namely because it refuses to expand it's league so they can have playoff. Big 12 and SEC put the cards in their favor with conference champ games that almost always bumps their end-of-season score. But every year good teams are denied opportunities. Last year USC, Utah, Boise St, Alabama, and Texas had earned the right to compete in a playoff. I'd say more BCS schools are denied a shot at the title than non-BCS programs because their is not a playoff.

  • re: the champ
    Sept. 23, 2009 9:00 a.m.

    You mean...have something akin to a playoff? Sorry, that's what the BCS is trying to avoid.

  • NO BSU!!!
    Sept. 23, 2009 8:52 a.m.

    Bringing Boise St. into the conference won't get us an AQ. All it would do is bring in a WAC team who will finish their years with 3-4 losses/season, and finish unranked.

    Boise State's home field advantage has to do with their ugly turf. It's the same color and hue as their jerseys, and their opponents aren't used to facing opponents that blend into their field. On the flip side, all the Broncos have to do is play assignment football since they don't need to see their teammates as clearly, but can easily read defenses with their white jerseys.

    Besides, with all the BSU games I've been seeing on ESPN, helmet-to-helmet contact has been their preferred method of tackling. Boise State's bush-league play is a better fit for the WAC. Don't even CONSIDER the Broncos until they clean up their defense, and convert their turf to a more appropriate hue. Such as GREEN!

  • Can't
    Sept. 23, 2009 8:51 a.m.

    Add Boise, they don't meet the requirements to get out of the Wac, that would be other athletics and ACADEMICS. Unfortunately they do not meet either one, just because a school is good in football doesn't mean anything.

  • Dapper2k
    Sept. 23, 2009 8:46 a.m.

    Maybe BSU doesn't want to leave the comfy confines of the WAC they would have to deal with Utah and TCU each year and we saw how well that went for them last year against TCU. They are a good team and program but I think they would find the waters a bit rougher in the MWC.

  • MWC
    Sept. 23, 2009 8:43 a.m.

    The Utah game against Louisville and the TCU game against Clemson will help if we can win both games. A big if right now looking at the way the conference has played as a hole this year.
    0-1 Utah loss at Oregon who BSU dominated 24-31
    0-1 UNLV loss at home to Oregon St 21-23
    0-1 Air Force loss at Minnesota 13-20
    0-2 Wyoming loss at home to Texas 10-41 and 0-23 to Colorado in an Embarrassing loss.
    1-1 BYU 14 to 13 Big win, 28 to 54 Embarrassing loss
    1-0 Colorado St over Colorado on the road, nice win.
    1-0 TCU over Virginia on the road 31-14, expected.
    Note San Diego St losing to Idaho of the WAC was a bad loss for the conference!

    We need Utah and TCU to represent for the conference a loss to the Big EAST at home would not be good!

  • 36-3
    Sept. 23, 2009 8:05 a.m.

    All you have to do is invite us, and we're in.

  • Wake up Craig Thompson
    Sept. 23, 2009 7:57 a.m.

    Add BSU to the MWC... it will increase the liklihood of getting in to the BCS. As a Ute fan it's painful to admit that over the past 10 years BSU has done a better job than Utah of consistently playing at a high level. In fact they've played better than any team in the MWC including BYU and TCU. The downside for MWC followers would be putting up with BSUs overbearing fans run their mouths all season long.

  • The Champ
    Sept. 23, 2009 7:15 a.m.

    Why dont the winner of the MWC and Big East play eachother at the end of the season, winner gets a BCS game? Neither conference has a conference championship game so this could be played in place of one. It would make the two conferences great rivals

  • Football fan
    Sept. 23, 2009 3:34 a.m.

    Adding Boise State would increase the percentage and be the obvious. Can we not do the obvious?

  • Anonymous
    Sept. 23, 2009 3:01 a.m.

    One of the obvious things the MWC should do is to add Boise State. Of course, they don't want to do the obvious!

  • Need legal action!
    Sept. 23, 2009 12:14 a.m.

    The BCS needs to be taken to court by someone to be ruled an anti-trust/illegal monopoly so that NCAA playoffs just like the hugely successful 1-AA playoffs can be duplicated for all college football!

  • Anonymous
    Sept. 22, 2009 11:31 p.m.

    Even better the whole MWC should just drop down to the championship subdivision. Everybody wins. They get their playoffs and the rest of us get rid of a bunch of whining pretenders.