CougarCorner
Sign in
Archived Topic

The REAL way to use expansion to crack the BCS

by Y 4 Ever · 5/7/2010

Advertisement
Y
Y 4 Ever
After reading all of these threads basically demanding that we invite Boise to join the MWC right now so we can become a BCS AQ conference, I've decided that you're all missing a key point:



The MWC problem with the BCS qualification standards isn't at the TOP. All that adding another top-tier team to the conference would do is add more losses to the other top tier teams.



If the MWC wants to address the problem that could be holding them back from AQ status, then what they need to do is something that no one is talking about:



DON'T invite BOISE! Again, do NOT invite Boise! We don't need another upper-level program in the league. The issue that we have is the BOTTOM of the conference, NOT the top! - so instead of inviting Boise, go get Houston, or Fresno, or Nevada, or even SMU, or Tulsa!



Go get teams that are good enough to beat the "cellar dwellers" of the MWC, who can consistently make (and win) bowl games, and can win OOC...but are NOT good enough to consistently beat BYU, Utah, and/or TCU.



If you add 3 losses to the top-3 teams in the MWC, you are NOT going to somehow have 4 teams ranked in the top 25 EVER. Period. End of story. You will have at the most 3 - WHICH WE ALREADY HAVE! There's no NEED to add another top-level competitor (with one exception to be discussed below)



But here's the key - unlike SDSU, UNLV, Wyoming, New Mexico, and most of the time CSU - these alternative teams are good enough to win significant OOC games! THAT is what we need - teams that can beat the "other" teams on the schedule, especially BCS-league teams, but who are NOT good enough to compete for the conference championship every year.



We need more Air Forces, not more BYUs or TCUs.



Here's what I say - the ONLY way we should invite Boise to join the MWC is if :utard: and/or TCU bolts. And that's IT.



Otherwise, bring in one or two mid-level teams that can compete and WIN out of conference, can win bowl games, and can routinely knock out 8 win seasons.



The PERFECT example is Houston last year. Had some GREAT OOC wins, made some noise nationally...but obviously weren't good enough to win the MWC, based on the stomping that AFA put on them in the bowl game.



But wouldn't the MWC LOVE to have those two wins over OSU and Texas Tech notched on the conference's belt?



If the overall goal is nationally notoriety and exposure, then it makes sense to add Boise, and sooner rather than later.



But if the goal is to become an AQ qualifying conference, then the ONLY way that Boise gets added is if one of the big 3 leave. And that's IT.



Otherwise, bring on Houston and Fresno.
W
Wickchad
Boise wouldn't hurt the top end of the conference that much. They would only play everyone in 2011 which is the last year of the evaluations. We would get all of the benefits of 2008-2010 without anyone having to play them. 2 of the 3 BCS criteria would be much stronger by adding Boise.



The real solution is getting Wyoming, New Mexico, SDSU, and UNLV to drop all of their money games and schedule FCS opponents or Sunbelt teams at home. Dummy down your schedules on the bottom half of the conference and we will be in.
L
Lawboy
Some guy did a statistical analysis of the MWC and said that as of now, the 2 teams holding the MWC back were SDSU and UNLV. UNM could enter that group as well, and I expect SDSU to continue to improve. Wyoming is not hurting us, and after last year, I expect them to be the 4-5 slot this year. I have no idea what the changes at UNLV will do for them, but I suspect not much, until they improve facilities. So UNLV could be the one bringing us all down in football in the end.
M
Mars


It doesn't matter if you add Boise State and they went 9-0 in the MWC next year, or if you added Utah State and they went 0-9 in the MWC next year. Either way, the MWC went .500 against each other.



What you need is for teams to improve in their OOCgames. The difference between 2-2 as a conference (18-18) and 3-1 (27-9) is immeasurable.
Y
Y 4 Ever
Mars wrote:


It doesn't matter if you add Boise State and they went 9-0 in the MWC next year, or if you added Utah State and they went 0-9 in the MWC next year. Either way, the MWC went .500 against each other.



What you need is for teams to improve in their OOCgames. The difference between 2-2 as a conference (18-18) and 3-1 (27-9) is immeasurable.


That was half of my point - bring in teams that can WIN OOC games consistently...but do not regularly compete for the conference title.



Adding Boise just means that among the top 4, there will be 3 additional losses (I'm not talking about the conference as a whole...just the TOP of the conference). And there's no WAY that under that scenario we'd have 4 ranked teams. Just wouldn't happen. So all that adding Boise does is make things more competitive at the TOP. Which also makes it MUCH more difficult for a team to go undefeated, and much LESS likely that we'll have a top-5 or even top-10 team come the end of the year, which is crucial to have, if for public perception and support if nothing else.



But we need more competitiveness AFTER you get past BYU, TCU, and :utard: . We need more strength in the mid-tier of the conference. We need more than just AFA as a "competitive" team that can win OOC and that the Big 3 can still clobber every year.



And so, I say we need Fresno and/or Houston. And not Boise.
Advertisement
M
Mars
33311710 wrote:
Adding Boise just means that among the top 4, there will be 3 additional losses. And there's no WAY that under that scenario we'd have 4 ranked teams... we need more competitiveness AFTER you get past BYU, TCU, and :utard: . We need more strength in the mid-tier of the conference... And so, I say we need Fresno and/or Houston. And not Boise.

Your argument doesn't make sense. It's like saying we should drop TCU and add Nevada, because TCU beats BYU and Utah too often. That isn't strength you're adding, it's mediocrity. Adding a team that will do about the same as the middle of our conference wouldn't change our conference numbers at all. It's like taking the average of the numbers 9, 5, and 1- Adding another 5 won't make the average any higher. Adding another 9 will. I just don't think you are thinking this through mathematically.



And that's before pointing out that we don't have 4 Top 25 teams right now, and that we could still play an 8-team conference schedule. And that without BSU in the WAC, a 1-loss MWC team is almost promised a BCS bowl bid every year, auto-qualifying or not.
G
gmj81
Yeah I really look for CSU and Wyoming and AFA to be really good middle of the pack type teams with occasional break out years as long as they can keep their current coaches. AFA has already been nipping at the heels of the Big Three which is quite impressive given their recruiting disadvantage. And they have already beaten two of the Big Three (TCU and Yewtah) during Calhoun's reign. I really think Christensen is going to do wonders for the Cowboys. Just look what he did in year one with a true freshman QB. Fairchild is on the right track too just seemed to have some bad luck last year.



I definitely think SDSU is going to pick things up under Hoke and Long. And I even think Locksley will get it going in Albuquerque. I still don't know about UNLV though. I don't know a great deal about Hauk but I just wonder if he has the experience to compete with all the other coaches in this league who have succeeded at varying levels (BCS, NFL).
Y
Y 4 Ever
Mars wrote:

Your argument doesn't make sense. It's like saying we should drop TCU and add Nevada, because TCU beats BYU and Utah too often. That isn't strength you're adding, it's mediocrity. Adding a team that will do about the same as the middle of our conference wouldn't change our conference numbers at all. It's like taking the average of the numbers 9, 5, and 1- Adding another 5 won't make the average any higher. Adding another 9 will. I just don't think you are thinking this through mathematically.



And that's before pointing out that we don't have 4 Top 25 teams right now, and that we could still play an 8-team conference schedule. And that without BSU in the WAC, a 1-loss MWC team is almost promised a BCS bowl bid every year, auto-qualifying or not.


No, what I'm saying is that adding Boise will just push BYU, Utah, or TCU down to the perceived "mediocre" land. What I'm saying is having 3 dominant teams at the top is ENOUGH. We don't NEED a 4th.



But thanks for the math lesson. I UNDERSTAND that no matter what team you add, the conference as a whole will log 9 additional losses against each other. But what I'm looking at is the TOP of the conference.



If we add a team that is good but not GREAT (ala Houston, Fresno, et al), who the big 3 will regularly beat, what that does is it adds one more good WIN to the top of the conference IN CONFERENCE, but won't generally force out one of the other 3 teams.



You see, at the end of the day, I'm a BYU fan, NOT a MWC fan (and not a recently-out-of-the-closet-Donkey-Lover like those who shall remain nameless)! I want what's best for the Cougs.



And what's best for the Coug's isn't to get another super-tough in-conference game. What's best for the Cougs is addressing the conference strength issues from the mid-tier teams.



If the BCS committee comes out and says 'Add Boise and you're IN', then by all means, ADD BOISE!



But that's NOT what they are saying. They are flat-out telling us the problem isn't the TOP of the conference - it's EVERYONE ELSE.



Sure, you can add Boise to solve that problem - add Boise, and you'll push down one of the "big 4" (BYU, TCU, BSU, and :utard: ) to the "middle of the pack". But from a BYU fan's perspective, that's not the best solution. If the issues with the BCS formula as it stands right now is the MIDDLE and BOTTOM of the conference, then add teams that would already fall there. Don't make things more challenging at the top - fix the problem by DIRECTLY ATTACKING it.
G
gmj81
The bottom line is we just need more teams that can beat their non-conference foes, particularly the BCS ones. That is the only way to improve your standing in the rank and file of the BCS formulas. BSU could do that. But we still need the bottom half of the conference to step up. Adding BSU alone won't do that. Fortunately, I think the most of the bottom half of the conference is going to rise from the ashes here soon under the new leadership that has been hired around the league. Somebody is always going to have to place last in the MWC and second to last and so on but as long as we can increase the number of out-of-conference victories, we'll increase the perception of our league. The question is how to do that while giving each team as much revenue as possible. Right now, adding BSU doesn't add a whole lot and only waters down the earnings per team from our TV contract.
W
Wickchad
gmj81 wrote:
The bottom line is we just need more teams that can beat their non-conference foes, particularly the BCS ones. That is the only way to improve your standing in the rank and file of the BCS formulas. BSU could do that. But we still need the bottom half of the conference to step up. Adding BSU alone won't do that. Fortunately, I think the most of the bottom half of the conference is going to rise from the ashes here soon under the new leadership that has been hired around the league. Somebody is always going to have to place last in the MWC and second to last and so on but as long as we can increase the number of out-of-conference victories, we'll increase the perception of our league. The question is how to do that while giving each team as much revenue as possible. Right now, adding BSU doesn't add a whole lot and only waters down the earnings per team from our TV contract.


No one in the conference can change their schedule for 2010 and Boise wouldn't be in the conference for 2010. So any changes to the conference would only affect revenues for one season before we could potentially be in the BCS and making a lot more money than we do now.



So the bottom half of the conference can give up a little bit of revenue by canceling unrealistic ooc games for 2011 (maybe we shouldn't be playing Texas...) and replacing them with cupcakes. Then they can reap the rewards of BCS revenue for years to come (maybe 2 before they figure a way to kick us out...).



Worst case scenario Boise could bring for 2011 would be that the new big 4 each beat each other and Houston or Fresno gets the BCS bid that year. The TV money isn't that great to begin with so splitting it an extra way for one year isn't going to hurt that much.
Advertisement
G
gmj81
The TV money these teams are receiving, while insignificant compared to most BCS teams' but certainly more than any other non-BCS team, may be the only thing is keeping some of these teams afloat right now. Splitting it another way may put them in a hole financially . They may not want to vote for that without the guarantee that it will produce more revenue in the future.
S
Sammich
33311710 wrote:
You see, at the end of the day, I'm a BYU fan, NOT a MWC fan (and not a recently-out-of-the-closet-Donkey-Lover like those who shall remain nameless)! I want what's best for the Cougs.



And what's best for the Coug's isn't to get another super-tough in-conference game. What's best for the Cougs is addressing the conference strength issues from the mid-tier teams.

I tend to feel the same way and that's why I'm nervous about the idea of adding BSU. If adding strong middle-tier teams improves the strength and rankings of the conference, I'd prefer that to having to play another game like TCU or Utah each year.
B
BerliNY
Interesting point, and a good one at that. So do we raid the WAC for Nevada and/or Fresno and leave Boise where they are? It might just be crazy enough to work.
M
Mars


I understand, a lot of BYU fans would rather finish first in a non-BCS MWC than 2nd in a BCS MWC. There's a tradeoff there. But I, for one, don't like sacrificing money and competition for security, being the big fish in the smaller pond.
Y
Y 4 Ever
Mars wrote:


I understand, a lot of BYU fans would rather finish first in a non-BCS MWC than 2nd in a BCS MWC. There's a tradeoff there. But I, for one, don't like sacrificing money and competition for security, being the big fish in the smaller pond.


A. How much of that money will hit your pockets?



B. if the numbers that were shown are accurate, adding teams like Houston and Fresno vs. Boise will have equal effects, but will leave less competition at the top of the league. The ONLY way Boise should get an invite is if the BCS says "add Boise and you're in". Otherwise, add GOOD teams that would fill in next to AFA. Again, if it bolsters that one requirement that we are lacking on - the LOWER HALF of the league (and NOT the top!)
Advertisement
M
Mars
33311710 wrote:
A. How much of that money will hit your pockets?



B. if the numbers that were shown are accurate, adding teams like Houston and Fresno vs. Boise will have equal effects, but will leave less competition at the top of the league. The ONLY way Boise should get an invite is if the BCS says "add Boise and you're in". Otherwise, add GOOD teams that would fill in next to AFA. Again, if it bolsters that one requirement that we are lacking on - the LOWER HALF of the league (and NOT the top!)

A. It will hit the pockets of: The basketball teams, volleyball, soccer, baseball, etc. It would have a great affect on all of our sports programs.



B. Adding Houston or Fresno is equal to adding Boise? Really? You still are looking at this emotionally and not mathematically. That comment makes no sense. That's like saying playing Portland State adds as much beef to an OOC schedule as playing Oregon. It's nonsensical. And it's still ignoring the fact that in-conference playing is worth zero.



C. The BCS isn't a godfather figure that delivers messages, like "do this and you're in". You don't seem to understand the concept at all. It's an equation that you have to fit, and there's guesswork involved in expansion, at least for 2 of the 4 year period. What isn't unknown, is how high BSU's numbers have been each of the past 2 years, and how low Houston and Fresno have been by comparison.
C
cscoug
You see, at the end of the day, I'm a BYU fan, NOT a MWC fan (and not a recently-out-of-the-closet-Donkey-Lover like those who shall remain nameless)! I want what's best for the Cougs.



And what's best for the Coug's isn't to get another super-tough in-conference game.


This seems very contradictory to me. At the end of the day, being in a BCS conference is what is best for BYU--for the the money, for the exposure, for the opportunities. Whether that is a tougher, expanded MWC that qualifies for inclusion or being added to another conference that is qualified, BYU will face tougher competition in their conference, and nobody will care because winning those games will get us more recognition, more high-profile games, and better postseason opportunities. So being a fan of BYU means being a fan of the MWC or holding out hope that some conference will overlook our Sunday-play policy, our perceived lowered academics, or our lack of national clout to invite us to their conference. Making it in the MWC seems more plausible, and because of that I am a huge MWC fan--for BYU's sake!
M
Mars
cscoug wrote:
This seems very contradictory to me. At the end of the day, being in a BCS conference is what is best for BYU--for the the money, for the exposure, for the opportunities. Whether that is a tougher, expanded MWC that qualifies for inclusion or being added to another conference that is qualified, BYU will face tougher competition in their conference, and nobody will care because winning those games will get us more recognition, more high-profile games, and better postseason opportunities. So being a fan of BYU means being a fan of the MWC or holding out hope that some conference will overlook our Sunday-play policy, our perceived lowered academics, or our lack of national clout to invite us to their conference. Making it in the MWC seems more plausible, and because of that I am a huge MWC fan--for BYU's sake!
Thank you! The reason found in your post is refreshing.



The same people who wouldn't want to see Boise State added to the MWC in order to gain BCS status for the conference because it would become to tough to win, would jump in an instant if there was a chance that BYU could join the PAC-10 or Big XII, which would be incredibly more difficult. Which is pretty funny.
Y
Y 4 Ever
Mars wrote:
The same people who wouldn't want to see Boise State added to the MWC in order to gain BCS status for the conference because it would become to tough to win, would jump in an instant if there was a chance that BYU could join the PAC-10 or Big XII, which would be incredibly more difficult. Which is pretty funny. [/color]


Once again, Mars, you see only what you want to see, and you hear only what you want to hear. The nature of your posts suggests that you still haven't caught on to the main premise of my original post:



If the BCS formula for inclusion doesn't mandate bringing in a team like Boise in order to become an AQ conference, then DON'T DO IT.



Your words "The same people who wouldn't want to see Boise State added to the MWC in order to gain BCS status for the conference because it would become to tough to win blah blah blah" demonstrate your lack of comprehension of the matter at hand.



I'll speak slowly and plainly this time. if the BCS committee specifically says "add Boise and you're in", then by all means, ADD YOUR BELOVED DONKEY'S!



But if the matter at hand is truly the MIDDLE and LOWER tiers of the conference, then adding Boise doesn't do ANY more good than adding Houston, or Fresno. In fact, these other two schools would be BETTER, because they are in larger markets.



Sure adding Boise to the conference would have this same effect - by pushing one of BSU, BYU, :utard: , or TCU down to the "middle" every year. But why do that?



Again, the whole premise of my post is about the MWC BECOMING a BCS auto qualifying conference, but doing so WITHOUT adding Boise.



And yet, for some reason, you seem to think this post is about A) this was an "I don't want BYU to be in a BCS conference", and/or B) "I'm afraid of Mar's Donkey's".



You see, it seems we both have the same goal - make the MWC a BCS AQ conference. But I believe this can be accomplished by adding strong teams to the MIDDLE of the conference, while for some reason you seem to believe the ONLY way the MWC will ever achieve AQ status is by adding the Dirty Donkeys.



So quit pretending like myself and the other posters on this topic who agree with me DON'T want to see the MWC become a BCS level league. By doing so, you are ignoring the entire basis of the original post.
S
scott715
Mathematically, BSU has more wins than any other team and would do more to raise the overall team ranking. It might play out that the MWC needs to move to 12 teams (Houston and someone else) to raise the overall ranking high enough to get into the BCS.
Page 1 of 2
This is an archived topic from the original CougarCorner forum. New replies are not accepted.