CougarCorner
Sign in
Archived Topic

MWC Expansion Eminent?

by Mars · 5/5/2010

Advertisement
M
Mars


"We've got regular business to conduct," Thompson said. "I would say there will be a lot of conversations about 'what ifs,' that sort of thing."



"That's all you can do. You're simultaneously proactive and reactive... You've got to prepare for and look at what makes you better. What do we do if this scenario develops? Or if these things happen? Where are you going to go? ...The end game is all the same. If there's an institution, or institutions, that can bring you more revenue, grow your enterprise and improve your conference, then you'll look at expansion... I think everybody's crunching those numbers and running those models right now. No determinations have been made as to whether that will happen or not... We're in the same boat. Is there an institution, or institutions, that make us better? We've been looking at models. We've been running numbers. We've been talking about, 'Are we better at 10 (members)?' Would we be better at 12? Twelve really hasn't gained much traction... I think there's some sentiment and feelings of where these schools were 11 years ago in a 16-team, four-quadrant (Western Athletic Conference)... It didn't make sense for them. We really haven't spent a lot of time on anything other than philosophically talking about 10... We're in the exact same position now... We added TCU solely and independently because they were a great addition. They brought a lot to the league... They've helped us grow and made us better. That was in the same time frame when schools left the Big East to go to the ACC and then the Big East picked up Conference USA schools. Everybody was moving around. We didn't have to add TCU. We did because they made us better."



http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700029786/Collegiate-athletics-changing.html?pg=2
L
Lawboy
I say yes. I expect 3 teams to be added. Possibly more if Utah, TCU or BYU jump ship. But the MWC will get to 12 teams. And I see the current top 3 candidates being BSU, Fresno State, and then Houston or Nevada. Perhaps Tulsa or SMU as well.



Basically, the old WAC will get back together, plus some teams. Will be strange.
B
BYUBALLIN
would be nice to see MWC add a team that jumps us up in football and basketball.
B
BerliNY
BYUBALLIN wrote:
would be nice to see MWC add a team that jumps us up in football and basketball.


Agreed, but who are you going to get? Boise? No. Anyone from the WAC for that matter? No. Houston? Ok, maybe but I can't think of any school that would make a contribution in both FB and BB that's not already in an AQ conference besides maybe Houston. Boise BBall sux. Nevada is mediocre at both BB and FB. Fresno same story. Am I missing an obvious choice here?
Y
YBrit
The reason the MWC exists is because the WAC was too big, and had too share too much money. The MWC will never expand. BYU, Utah, and TCU will be BcS schools before the MWC expands. Unless the MWC becomes a BcS conference.
Advertisement
M
Mars


Rose makes it sound like BYU officials have informed him that they are pushing to add Boise State to the conference:



" Asked if he has had any discussions with BYU Athletics administrators about potential conference expansion scenarios, Rose said "it's been discussed with me, but what I think, my opinion... isn't going to make any difference." "

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=498&sid=10661373
C
Cougarbib
I wonder if the Eminent expansion might also be Imminent.



It also seemed clear he was saying we will add Boise State if we can and do nothing else unless an opportunity to add someone else who could really help the league comes along. Adding TCU did help the league improve in football national reputation. TCU does not have much of a fan base and not much of a basketball prominence - but they have a darn good football team and that helped the conference.



It remains to be seen if a school like Houston or even SMU or someone else might regain enough natinal prominence in results on the field or the court to clearly strengthen the national perception of the conference.



He didn't come right out and say it, but getting into the Auto-Qualify status might be a bigger challenge if the MWC tries to drag along too many mediocre teams with it. The MWC already has plenty of those. BUt Houston and SMU have some good things cookin down in Texas and just maybe another seaso or two of success could help make an eventual argument to go to 12.



A better revenue sharing model could also open up some possibilities.



Go Cougs
M
Mars
Mars wrote:
Would we be better at 12? Twelve really hasn't gained much traction[/b]... I think there's some sentiment and feelings of where these schools were 11 years ago in a 16-team, four-quadrant (Western Athletic Conference)... It didn't make sense for them. We really haven't spent a lot of time on anything other than philosophically talking about 10...

12 teams, 2 divisions and a conference championship game sounds like a dead idea currently.
G
gmj81
I've said this a bunch but I truly believe that 9 is the perfect number for a college football conference. It allows you to have a the same number of conference home and away games, it allows you to have 4 non-conference games, that you can use to play whoever you want, and it allows you to avoid the ridiculous, all-about-the-money championship game. That said, it seems that no matter how much the BCS proponents profess "it's about the student-athletes", it's clear from their actions they couldn't care less.



Since the formulas for BCS inclusion have been revealed, it's evident that BSU essentially adds nothing to our appeal to get an auto-bid and it only waters down the earnings per school that much more. The only way adding BSU could help us is if the BCS decided that by adding the MWC with Boise, all the "problem children" would finally be satisfied and there wouldn't be so much squawking anymore. That said, they could also be hoping the MWC does add BSU knowing they still don't have to grant us the auto-bid due to their formulas for inclusion and that it would only make it that much harder for a MWC team to go undefeated and "bust the BCS". Of course, if one did happen to go undefeated, they would have a much greater shot at the NC game but I bet they feel pretty confidant that the human pollsters would still throw the "Big Dogs" in the game over the little guy.
C
Cougarbib
I actually agree with MARS last post. Make a note of that. Scary!



re gmj81 -



I agree with most of your post. But it seeems to me that the criteria for inclusion as an auto-qualifier had one measure the MWC was not cuttin the mustard on and that was performance of the lower half. 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. We can't get whomever we want to play us on any equal footing it they will play us at all and that seems to be getting worse - not better.



I wouldn't add BSU unless a deal was cooked with the BCS to include the MWC or unless I also intended to move further and create some lock-in of the Utes as part of that expansion with a poison pill should they walk - same for TCU and then add 2 programs that had the best chance of evolving to put a respectable product on the field, court or both. That might be SMU and Houston. Maybe it is Nevada and Fresno State. In this model, our top teams would not need to play all of our top teams and beat each other up and the playoff game would likely result in two top 10 teams playing each other most years. What I mean is the winner of the BYU-Utah game probably takes one division and is highly ranked and the winner of the TCU BSU gme takes the other division and is highly ranked. Then the winner of that title game is guaranteed to go Top 6 with a win over the other guy. For this to work out for eventual BCS inclusion - the Big 4 Boys need to quit taking the bait and scheduling improbable games across multiple time zones against top BCS teams with no home game in return. In fact, for this to work, all MWC teams should play games that they have an equal shot or better of winning for OOC games.



Then when the MWC becomes part of the BCS - and gets a regular chunk of the money - the bottom of the MWC may start to improve. They could certainly take any players the WAC would normally get - even more so than now. They could compete with most PAC 10 teams for players and with many Big 12 teams for players.



Life would get better over time.
Advertisement
M
Mars
Cougarbib2 wrote:
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.
G
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.
M
Mars
gmj81 wrote:
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.
G
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
Y 4 Ever
Mars wrote:

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.
Advertisement
G
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.
M
Mingjai
33311710 wrote:

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.
M
Mars
gmj81 wrote:
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.
This is an archived topic from the original CougarCorner forum. New replies are not accepted.