MWC Expansion Eminent?

[Mars]

It would seem that adding BSU would then create a conference with 5 consistently good teams and 5 more that usually produce 1 or 2 OK enough teams like Wyoming last year being bowl eligible. Maybe that would help. I disagree that it is nice othave 4 OOC games so we can play whomever we want.

Right now the overall strength of the MWC isn't strong enough to auto-qualify, but it is strong enough to potentially qualify under the secondary conditions. Adding Boise State will helps the MWC's numbers, but it wouldn't be enough to boost the first two year's stats into auto-qualifying heights. BUT... there are two years left. The addition of BSU may keep the MWC from slipping below the secondary conditions, or it may be enough to boost us up above the auto conditions. It's a gamble to add them, but it's just a question of whether we get a huge win going that route, as there aren't any losses to be had through that choice. BSU will undoubtedly be higher than the medium of our conference this year and the next.

But 10 teams doesn't have to mean 9 conference games- I wouldn't go that route. Doing that has hurt the PAC-10 horribly, in both computer rankings and in Top 25 polls. Play 8, including your main rival, skip one. Best for the stats. Actually helps the bottom of the conference, as they might skip a TCU, BYU, etc every once and again. Teams like Wyoming and CSU really need an extra win frequently to play in a bowl game. And for Air Force, skipping an extra loss would have frequently been the difference between them sneaking in the rankings or, as the case has been, not.

[gmj81]

I don't like not playing all the teams in your conference because then occasionally teams who may get an easier schedule win the conference without really being the best team in the conference. It happens all the time in the Pac-10 and Big-10 since they don't play everyone every year. Every few years one of the top three team's in the conference may not have to play one of the other top two while the other does. Having a conference championship game is the only way to really crown a champion in that regard and I've already explained why I don't like conference championships games.

[Mars]

I don't like not playing all the teams in your conference because then occasionally teams who may get an easier schedule win the conference without really being the best team in the conference. It happens all the time in the Pac-10 and Big-10 since they don't play everyone every year.

1- The PAC-10 does round robin now.
2- The Big Ten has more teams in the BCS every year, per school, than almost any other conference since the BCS was formed, maybe even the SEC. Missing two conference games has proven the golden equation for them to have 2-3 highly ranked teams almost each and every season. Statistically, it has made their numbers appear to be MUCH stronger than perhaps their logical on-the-field results would appear.

[gmj81]

I'm aware of both of those (and the Big Ten does a round robin too but instead of just not playing one other conference foe each year like the Pac-10 they don't play two; how can you claim to be the conference champ when you haven't played two teams in your own conference?). I still don't like it. I'm not looking for an unfair advantage. We've seen enough of that in college football. I want as close as possible a truly fair system that crowns conference champs (everybody plays everybody else once) and then rewards them with a playoff berth. It might still be a pipe dream at this point but it's the only way to truly identify conference and national champions IMO.

[Y 4 Ever]

2- The Big Ten has more teams in the BCS every year, per school, than almost any other conference since the BCS was formed, maybe even the SEC. Missing two conference games has proven the golden equation for them to have 2-3 highly ranked teams almost each and every season. Statistically, it has made their numbers appear to be MUCH stronger than perhaps their logical on-the-field results would appear. [/color]

Agreed. And you can point a finger to the Pac-10 and say that the reason why they have so FEW 2nd BCS teams IS the Round Robin format. The Big Ten is generally considered to be down right now, and one of the weaker "BcS" conferences...and yet, they keep putting 2 teams in BCS bowl games like CLOCKWORK.

[gmj81]

The Big Ten also does a round robin format. The reason they keep putting multiple teams in has nothing to do with perception of the quality of the conference and only to do with the draw the conference has monetarily. Everyone has agreed the Big Ten has been down the last half decade before last year (which I think was mostly an anomaly anyway). But they are some of the biggest schools in some of the most populated states and the BCS is all about the money. Who can fill the most seats? Who can secure the biggest TV draw? That's all that matters to the BCS after #1 and #2 are paired. And because of the greedy nature of the rest of the system that #1/#2 pairing is as faulty as the rest of it.

[Mingjai]

2- The Big Ten has more teams in the BCS every year, per school, than almost any other conference since the BCS was formed, maybe even the SEC. Missing two conference games has proven the golden equation for them to have 2-3 highly ranked teams almost each and every season. Statistically, it has made their numbers appear to be MUCH stronger than perhaps their logical on-the-field results would appear. [/color]

Agreed. And you can point a finger to the Pac-10 and say that the reason why they have so FEW 2nd BCS teams IS the Round Robin format. The Big Ten is generally considered to be down right now, and one of the weaker "BcS" conferences...and yet, they keep putting 2 teams in BCS bowl games like CLOCKWORK.

I don't consider the Big Ten down just because Ohio State can't deliver in the big game. I think if you take away perennially overrated Ohio State's recent results in the championship, the Big Ten isn't as underperforming as we like to think. My favorite indicator of Big Ten strength is the Capital One Bowl, which pits the best non-BCS Big Ten (2 or 3) team against the best non-BCS SEC team (2 or 3). The Big Ten has won 5 of the last 6 against SEC teams in what amounts to a home game for the SEC team. I'm guessing the only Big Ten team that was favored to win was Wisconsin over Arkansas in 2007. Even last year, I think LSU was favored over Penn State despite Penn State's higher ranking.

My point is that it's easy to pick on the Big Ten because they don't have an elite team, but based on my observation, top-to-bottom, the Big Ten is a tough league to play in. I'd be willing to bet if BYU had played and beat Purdue in Provo during the last three or four years, Cougar fans would be pointing to that as a big win for the program, despite Purdue being a marginal bowl team at best during the past few years. But Ohio State, Wisconsin, Iowa, Penn State fans all look at Purdue much like BYU fans look at Wyoming or Colorado State. Tough team to beat, but should be a win.

I hate that Big Ten teams miss 2 teams a year, because it gives them an advantage for getting a second team into the BCS. It could be worse--imagine if Michigan and Ohio State didn't have to play every year. If both finished the season undefeated, you'd hear shouts for an all Big Ten national championship game, which would be lame, even for Big Ten apologists like me. Big Ten scheduling is complicated by the fact that each school has two rivals that they are guaranteed to play every year. So teams like Illinois and Purdue are guaranteed to have Indiana and Northwestern as two of their eight conference games. On the other hand, Ohio State is guaranteed Michigan and Penn State (which would normally be tough) and Minnesota is guaranteed Iowa and Wisconsin (who are consistently solid).

But I guess if the system allows them to do this, they'd be stupid not to take advantage of that.

[Mars]

I'm aware of both of those (and the Big Ten does a round robin too but instead of just not playing one other conference foe each year like the Pac-10 they don't play two

Round robin means playing everyone. The PAC-10 doesn't skip anyone anymore.

And no, Minnesota and Wisconsin aren't some of the most populated states in the nation. No, BCS rankings aren't determined by money either.