Gordon Monson FINALLY Gets Something Right!

I have said it before but I am going to say it again. The BCS does not, repeat, DOES NOT want the MWC to share its pie. They are not going to remove one of the other auto qualifiers to add the MWC, I don't care what rules they say there are to get in. The only way I would think adding BSU is a good idea is if someone reliable from the BCS guarantees automatic inclusion for the MWC if BSU is added. The best quote from that article is the following:



"Adding Boise State adds needed strength, adds potential for revenue growth, adds legitimacy, adds competitiveness, adds national interest, adds negotiating power and it makes automatic-qualifying status darn near automatic."



Key words in Bold above. "Darn near" is not a guarantee.

While the BCS rules provide a mechanism for adding additional auto-qualifiers, the BCS rules also provide mechanisms for changing the BCS rules.



Having said that, I agree that we need to add BSU. If nothing else we lose the WAC trolls and we no longer have to argue about BSU's crap conference schedule and opine at their ability to go undefeated in a more rigorous environment.



Plus, I want to see Karl Benson try and tout the WAC without BSU.

The MWC does not need BSU to get in the BCS. It is happening without them and national pundits are calling for it. The tide is on the side of the MWC. And it is going to happen. Adding BSU just adds one more mouth to feed, splits the pies into smaller strips, and does not guarantee the shot at 2 BCS spots with the added depth, so I say do not expand.



I expect the BCS to add the Cotton Bowl soon and for their to be 5 destinations in the BCS rotation. The Cotton Bowl has the stadium now, the media market, and a sponsor to make it happen. It also has great tradition. This opens up 2 more BCS slots. The MWC champ gets one, and at-large the other. Win-win for the current BCS schools. They get more $$$ and look like their system is working in the process. This stems the playoff talk as well, which the BCS needs. Of course, they may not be smart enough to see it this way.

BCS Honk Bill Hancock said that he thinks the requirements to qualify for an autobid should be made transparent. Maybe things will get more concrete in the next year or so.

I've been a proponent of adding Boise State primarily because I think adding good teams that fit the geographic footprint adds to the entertainment value. Another good conference foe creates a more intense atmosphere during the conference season.



One factor that I overlooked, and Monson brings that up here, is that Boise State travels well (at least to the BCS bowls). I was impressed by all the orange at the Fiesta Bowl. Judging from the noise levels generated by BSU fans, it was like a Bronco home game.



While advertising and TV dollars may drive the BCS as a collective, each individual bowl wants to select teams such that their bowl sells out. Further, it's in the best interest for the bowls' broadcast partners to have a good atmosphere in the stands--that's particularly true for BCS bowls, which are shown on the networks. Why do Big Ten teams and SEC teams tend get at-large BCS bids, which are at the individual bowls' discretion? It's because the top tier schools in those conference travel well. BSU has demonstrated it can travel well to BCS bowls.



From a conference expansion standpoint, the real question in my mind is how BSU travels to non-BCS bowls. All bowls want to sell out their stadiums. If the MWC can add another perennial bowl team that performs well both on-the-field and at the box office, it will make more bowls, especially those in the west, pay attention to the MWC. It's a shame that the bowls that the old WAC had such a big part in building up--Fiesta, Holiday, Insight--barely give the MWC the time of day anymore.



As I said, I'm already in favor of adding BSU, but if adding BSU means the possibility of upgrading the MWC's bowl situation, that's just icing for me.



EDIT: Regarding the tide being on the MWC's side, I'm willing to bet that if the BCS does add the MWC, it will force them to expand to take at least BSU (and maybe Fresno State and Houston). After all, the BCS wants to minimize the non-AQs that get in--it doesn't want give the MWC an autobid if BSU remains a thorn in its side.

I say ONLY if it is a prerequisite to getting aq status. Otherwise I don't see the positives outweighing the negatives for BYU.

frdbtr wrote:
I have said it before but I am going to say it again. The BCS does not, repeat, DOES NOT want the MWC to share its pie. They are not going to remove one of the other auto qualifiers to add the MWC, I don't care what rules they say there are to get in. The only way I would think adding BSU is a good idea is if someone reliable from the BCS guarantees automatic inclusion for the MWC if BSU is added. The best quote from that article is the following:



"Adding Boise State adds needed strength, adds potential for revenue growth, adds legitimacy, adds competitiveness, adds national interest, adds negotiating power and it makes automatic-qualifying status darn near automatic."



Key words in Bold above. "Darn near" is not a guarantee.

No, but a MWC lawsuit against the BCS be more justified with Boise in the MWC ? If the BCS kept us out when we actually qualified under the contractual rules, (4 yr eval period) then would not our shunning be heard around the nation ? Yes.



Monson's article bugged me a bit though. They guy works for a major news paper and doesn't have the know how to call some MWC officials and get some quotes from them about the status of Boise joining the league. His opinion is nice, but it's the opinion of about 90% of MWC fans. A little investigation or journalism would be nice.

bluebrotha wrote:
They guy works for a major news paper and doesn't have the know how to call some MWC officials and get some quotes from them about the status of Boise joining the league. His opinion is nice, but it's the opinion of about 90% of MWC fans. A little investigation or journalism would be nice.

When I saw this I laughed to hard that milk shot out of my nose (figuratively).



Come on, it's Gordo monson we're talking about! You can't expect real journalistic results from a columnist!



The guy's a joke, and the only reason he has a job is because people read his columns to feed their hatred of him.

As a rule, I don't read anything that tool writes anymore. He's nothing more than a radio shock jock who occasionally scribbles down something for the local liberal rag. As far as I'm concerned, Drew is the only reason I even reward their site with my 'views'.



As for the addition of BSU... I agree that adding BSU would be nice just from the perspective that it increases the strength and competition of the conference. One more exciting conference game. But that may not always be the case. It's kind of a risky proposition in my opinion. Should BSU lose Petereson, will they remain as good as they've been? Once they join the MWC and they start to lose a few more games a year, will the national curiosity continue to be peaked by the 'little school that could out in Idaho'? I'm no so confidant that once BSU gets added, they wouldn't fade away into the middle class again before six years has passed by.



I see BSU has a quick fix. Adding them now only splits up the money even more. It only messes with a good thing regarding the number of teams in the conference (nine is the perfect number for the college football season). And it DOES NOT guarantee that we'll get BCS inclusion. If we could swap an existing team in the conference for BSU, I'd be all on board, but everybody in this forum should know that that is not acceptable per the MWC bylaws. If adding BSU somehow got us a new and more profitable TV contract, I'd be for it, but the current contract doesn't expire for another how many years? Not to mention the state of Idaho adds less market share than even just the SLC-Provo metroplex. Granted the mountain west is the 'last frontier' so to speak and will continue to see growth increase while the eastern states and west coast likely continue to lose population. But none of that will happen quickly enough to matter one iota in the current decision process.



I don't even hate BSU like some Cougar fans do. I don't mind them at all really. They presently have an extremely good football team. But there is just not enough proof yet that they can sustain that success in my opinion for the long haul. If BYU didn't have a built in recruiting base, I wouldn't believe that they could do it either. I just don't see how the cold-weather states can really compete year-in and year-out with the southern states for the recruits that are the lifeblood of their programs.

I opened this topic expecting to read that Gordon Monson had written a full apology and announced his retirement from sports journalism and media.



Imagine my disappointment.

Adding BSU to the MWC will guarantee that BSU will not have many undefeated seasons in the future :lol:

hawkwing wrote:
I opened this topic expecting to read that Gordon Monson had written a full apology and announced his retirement from sports journalism and media.



Imagine my disappointment.

Ditto!! +1!!!!!

:crazy: :evil:

The only reason you add BSU is so we can beat them each year. (Hopefully)

gmj81 wrote:
As for the addition of BSU... I agree that adding BSU would be nice just from the perspective that it increases the strength and competition of the conference. One more exciting conference game. But that may not always be the case. It's kind of a risky proposition in my opinion. Should BSU lose Petereson, will they remain as good as they've been? Once they join the MWC and they start to lose a few more games a year, will the national curiosity continue to be peaked by the 'little school that could out in Idaho'? I'm no so confidant that once BSU gets added, they wouldn't fade away into the middle class again before six years has passed by.

I disagree here because it is amazing what BSU has done, not too long ago they were a 1-AA school playing in the Big Sky and now they are ranked as one of the best teams and have won the most games over the past decade. (scheduling aside) One of the biggest reasons I don't think they will fade away is because there is A LOT of money in that area of Idaho and a lot of people who will pay to keep the program at a similar level. Even if Peterson leaves, they will have no qualms paying someone else good money to come in and coach who will get the job done.

jonnylingo wrote:
I say ONLY if it is a prerequisite to getting aq status. Otherwise I don't see the positives outweighing the negatives for BYU.

and ONLY if they give up the blue turf.

Florwood wrote:

I say ONLY if it is a prerequisite to getting aq status. Otherwise I don't see the positives outweighing the negatives for BYU.

and ONLY if they give up the blue turf.

I actually like the blue turf. It's no more of an abomination than the D.H. is in baseball - that's for sure! :whistle:

i grew up with Gordon Monson outside Philadelphia in Wilmington,Delaware.we sat next to each other in early morning seminary and dated twin sisters,and sometimes girl- friend swopped[their idea not ours]we went to rival high schools,he went to Brandywine, i attended Concord.Gordon's always been something of a punk,but not a bad guy.he played church BBall and loved being a star in that venue,but had little to no athletic ability,thus his foray into sports journalism.he's actually a pretty bright guy and did attend BYU as did several family members,but i think came back from LA feeling he was a big fish moving back into a small podunk pond.i discount much of what he says as the call for attention of a church league baller whom i owned whenever we were on the court together:)