Interesting article on BYU, the MWC, the BCS & expansion...

I hope we get gobbled up by the PAC-10 or the Big-12, but, somehow I think we'll be wandering that path through "very dark woods" (or whatever he says). If we don't end up in the PAC-10, perhaps our best option would be to go independent ala Notre Dame?

Keep praying that the Big Ten gets Mizzou or Nebraska, there's a good chance that the Big XII would come knocking if that happened.

I really hope the Cougs never join the PAC-10. An automatic-bid MWC would be waaaay better. The pac10 sux.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Cougy_Monster wrote:
I really hope the Cougs never join the PAC-10. An automatic-bid MWC would be waaaay better. The pac10 sux.

It's really a decision on goals. If BYU was in the Pac-10, the LDS church would be put into a brighter spot light. The pac-10 universities conrtol the west coast (politics, education, athletics etc.) Well respected state employees, legislatures, business tycoons etc, are typically Pac-10 alum. The pac-10 has greater ripple effects for exposure.



Think playing at UNLV or WYoming or Utah brings negative LDS taunts, wait till we play Cal (Berkley), Stanford, Oregon, and all the rest year in and year out. The heat will be poured on. The pac-10 brings loads more fans and has a much bigger TV viewership.



BYU in the pac-10 will alter Mormon perception far more than BYU in the MWC. If the church wants to fly low, a AQ MWC is preferable. BYU would get a great deal of more money being in the pac-10. Pac-10 would have better TV paying deals and better bowls for the non-BCS teams (Holiday, Emerald, etc.)



The B12 would be a less fortunate for BYU. BYU's fanbase resides in the west, not so much in B12 country. BYU already has quasi rivalries with pac-1o schools, but no real history exists with B12 programs.

Why would we ever want to move conferences? The MWC is the 3rd best conference in the country.



I am confused.... ;)

westidahocougar wrote:
Why would we ever want to move conferences? The MWC is the 3rd best conference in the country.



I am confused.... ;)

Because the BCS will find a way to screw us, and not let us (MWC) in.

I would much prefer for the current MWC to remain intact, with the possible addition of Boise St. If the MWC had those teams I don't see how anyone could say they aren't worthy of a BCS autobid. Everyone always makes the argument that they have bad teams at the bottom, but so does every conference, including the mighty SEC. It's very likely that for the second year in a row the MWC will have the #2 team in the country and 3 teams in the top 25 with 2 in the top 10, add Boise into that mix and you have a pretty good 10 team conference. 6 of the 10 would be bowl teams, which is about right for any other conference.

All that being said, for selfish reasons I would prefer the Big XII over the PAC-10. I live an hour away from two Big XII schools.

BYUROCKS wrote:

Why would we ever want to move conferences? The MWC is the 3rd best conference in the country.



I am confused.... ;)

Because the BCS will find a way to screw us, and not let us (MWC) in.

That's what I've been saying for quite some time. People don't understand that there are many people who kill, mame, lie, cheat, etc. to keep money in their pockets. They'll do it at the drop of a hat and work just as hard to try to convice everyone that they are playing fair and they don't know why you dont' see it that way. Why else to you think that the BCS would have hired two individuals whose job description is to just make the BCS look good, fair and equitable? They did it because it made business sense to try to make the world think they are not the bad guys. It demonstrates the length they'll go to not have to divide any further part of the pie.



Do you really think that any of the BCS conferences are looking for fair? They changed the BCS admission rules a few years back to make it sound like they'd add any conference that qualified to their cartel, but that was never, ever their intention. One, they didn't think any of the confernces would have runs like the MWC has had in the last two years and two, they know these qualification rules aren't etched in stone on any Mt. Sinai and can and will be ammended at will. Really stop and think if you really believe that the schools of the cartel will ever be willing to give up money they already have coming in? That is exactly what will happen if they add another conference. Their own personal piles of cash will diminish--no doubt about that. Where are they going to replace that stream that they have used for their own selfish purposes? They have the power and ability to hold the whole NCAA ransom with their talk of playoffs being too burdensome on the student athletes while ALL the other football divisions use them to decide a champion. That should be proof enough to whomever to demonstrate their power and ability.



The only shot I see is in expansion of current BCS conferences, but while I see that such would make Utah the king of the mountain, I just have a feeling that there are too many that see the BYU-LDS attachment as too cumbersome to ever extend an invitation. BYU's only hope I see is via the route of the independent if they ever get even 1/3 of the way to the power of a Notre Dame, but I don't know that such would happen in my lifetime. I can't imagine how sad it would be if we were left in the MWC minus Utah and TCU and while I realize that BYU is much more powerful in the scheme of marketing than the other two schools, their negative side is just a bit too much for any conference to look past.



I really don't want to seem pesimistic, but people keep talking like this will all turn out fair and it's just not going to happen. So go ahead and dream, but you have to let reality slap you in the face every once in awhile and come back to earth and understand that NO ONE is going to go in a direction where they will allow for a loss of their income to their programs unless they are forced to do so and I don't think there is a strong enough political group who is WILLING to do that.

EM_Puma

I get what you are saying, what I hope is that you are right about the money thing. Hopefully the amount of money that BYU would add to a conference would outweigh the religious aspect of it. Hopefully.

Ewww...I don't like the PAC-10, I'd rather stay in the MWC and get the autobid than go to the PAC. My first choice would be the Big XII, second would be MWC autobid...second to last would be getting my face eating off by a pack of starving Bavarian shaved weasels, and last would be moving to the PAC-10.

Mithrandir wrote:
I hope we get gobbled up by the PAC-10 or the Big-12, but, somehow I think we'll be wandering that path through "very dark woods" (or whatever he says). If we don't end up in the PAC-10, perhaps our best option would be to go independent ala Notre Dame?

Going independant would be the death of BYU sports. BYU does not have an NBC contract to broadcasts its games and would not be able to support sports programs without conference money. ND is the only school in the country that has that ability.

Mars wrote:


PAC-10 > Big XII

I think that the Big XII has classier fans and teams, more tradition, and schools that we would fit better with.

Schmoe wrote:

PAC-10 > Big XII

I think that the Big XII has classier fans and teams, more tradition, and schools that we would fit better with.

I personally agree with those sentiments exactly, however, currently our recruiting base is much more oriented to the PAC10 and so if you had to pick from any conference and had that opportunity, it would be difficult to not go in the direction of the PAC10. Our base is changing ever so slightly as more polys seem to be home-grown to Texas and we do have the abilty to really recruit nationally based on the LDS connection, but we would still, currently, have more benefits being in the PAC10--if we could pick.

tripwire wrote:
Everyone always makes the argument that they have bad teams at the bottom, but so does every conference, including the mighty SEC.

Thought I'd look at the bottom of each of the Conferences to see how they compare.



ACC 5 teams w/loosing seasons 2 with records of 4-8 or worse

Big12 3 teams w/loosing seasons 2 with records of 4-8 or worse

Big E 2 teams w/loosing seasons 2 with records of 4-8 or worse

Big10 4 teams w/loosing seasons 2 with records of 4-8 or worse

Pac10 3 teams w/loosing seasons 2 with records of 4-8 or worse

SEC 2 teams w/loosing seasons 1 with record of 4-8 or worse



Mt West 4 teams w/loosing season 3 with records of 4-8 or worse



So it would only have taken 1 team like New Mexico to have had a normal winning record and then add a Boise and we would be very comparable. You can also see that we are doing great with our top 3 but this has not been a good year for the bottom 3.



Go Cougs!



L Hatton

Louisville KY

Well one of our lower 3 went 3-1 OOC including a win over Colorado. That makes the conference look pretty tough to me. SDSU is turning the corner under a new coach. And what happened to NM? They better be improved next year.

The arugment against adding BSU is that we would knock each other off. That is true. Thinking about it, going to 12 teams and splitting the top 4 would solve that problem. you would have one tough game and then go to the championship game with the winner going to the BCS. The championship could be played in LV with the possibility of doing it in Dallas if we were to add another Texas school.



Under the old WAC the championshiop game was hard to sell out. This time we would have 2 top 25 teams in the game. That should help to get fans out. Plus the game would be much more attractive to tv. We could sell the rights to a network or ESPN.



The argument against 12 teams is that the pie would be split more ways. True but if expansion is done right there should be more money coming in. I hope the decision makers look at future revenues instead of current revenues. I think there is potential here. This is the year to make a bold move.



Another thought, this was the perfect year to not expand. We got 2 teams into the BCS. With expansion it would have been only 1. Maybe we should tell BCS that we don't want in. That effectively we are already AQ and we are beating their system. A little reverse pyschology never hurts.

KYCoug wrote:

Everyone always makes the argument that they have bad teams at the bottom, but so does every conference, including the mighty SEC.

Thought I'd look at the bottom of each of the Conferences to see how they compare.



ACC 5 teams w/loosing seasons 2 with records of 4-8 or worse

Big12 3 teams w/loosing seasons 2 with records of 4-8 or worse

Big E 2 teams w/loosing seasons 2 with records of 4-8 or worse

Big10 4 teams w/loosing seasons 2 with records of 4-8 or worse

Pac10 3 teams w/loosing seasons 2 with records of 4-8 or worse

SEC 2 teams w/loosing seasons 1 with record of 4-8 or worse



Mt West 4 teams w/loosing season 3 with records of 4-8 or worse



So it would only have taken 1 team like New Mexico to have had a normal winning record and then add a Boise and we would be very comparable. You can also see that we are doing great with our top 3 but this has not been a good year for the bottom 3.

What this doesn't account for is the no-name teams that all of the "premiere" conferences pad their schedules with I wonder how many of the 5 win teams had wins against a div Iaa team and sunbelt bottom feeders?

scott715 wrote:
Well one of our lower 3 went 3-1 OOC including a win over Colorado. That makes the conference look pretty tough to me. SDSU is turning the corner under a new coach. And what happened to NM? They better be improved next year.

Except the other 2 were Weber State and Idaho...I hope you're right about next year.