CougarCorner
Sign in
Archived Topic

The Only Expansion I See As Being Likely

by Mars · 5/14/2010

Advertisement
M
Mars
" Boise State’s days in the Western Athletic Conference could be numbered. The Mountain West Conference presidents meet next month, and there’s at least a decent chance that they will formally invite BSU — if not immediately after the gathering, then before July 1. Here’s why:



If the MWC wants Boise State’s performance in the 2008-10 seasons to be included in the formula that determines whether the MWC receives an automatic BCS bid for the next cycle of games — and it sure as heck does — then the Broncos must be a member of the MWC in 2011. And for them to be a member in 2011, they must be invited by July 1, 2010. "



http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2010/05/11/bcs-expansion-boise-state-to-the-mountain-west-missouri-out-of-the-big-12/





I talk about BSU on this board mostly because I expect them to join our conference. That makes their Top 5 rankings and National Championship pursuit hugely relevant to us. Of course, we will be playing them 4 times in football over the next half a decade either way.
L
Lawboy
I just do not see us going to 10 teams in the MWC. That balance works crappy for the PAC10 and scheduling. 9 conference games with only 3 OOC games doe not work well. Only way BSU gets invited is if the MWC looks to add 3 teams and moves to 12, and then holds a conference title game. Why add 1 team, and not get the conference title game, when the main impetus for the expansion of the Big 12 and PAC10 will be to add teams to get that extra game? Adding only BSU makes little sense from a $$$ perspective, unless the Boise market sells tons of cable subscription money to the MTN. Like over $1.5M annually, which I do not see. It will be 3 teams or no teams.



By the way, you are way off on your likely expansion. Where there is smoke, there is fire. Expansion talk has been smoking a long time now, and is still heating up. This story has legs and will not go away for a reason--because it is true. It is no longer a question of if, but of when. It may not happen this fall, but it will within the next 12 months for sure.
Y
Y 4 Ever
Lawboy wrote:

By the way, you are way off on your likely expansion. Where there is smoke, there is fire. Expansion talk has been smoking a long time now, and is still heating up. This story has legs and will not go away for a reason--because it is true. It is no longer a question of if, but of when. It may not happen this fall, but it will within the next 12 months for sure.


I agree, but I also think that the Pac-10 is MUCH less likely to expand that the Big Ten, to then be followed by the Big 12 replacing teams.
P
ProV1
I think the only way the MWC keeps Utah and BYU from leaving (if invited) is to have an autobid. The only way to get an autobid is to invite Boise State. That said, if BSU is added and the MWC gets an autobid, and the Pac-10 still invites Utah, I think they leave.
B
BYUBALLIN
what the MWC needs is not bsu, they need the bottom teams to step up. I think the MWC gets in without them no doubt. During bball season bsu has nothing to offer the conf at all. ANY other major college sport they have nothing to offer. Iam all for the Cougs going to pac-10 or big 12. Football and basketball games would be so much better. bsu is not in the conf yet so lets stop the lovefest mars.
Advertisement
W
Wickchad
I want BSU in the MWC just so they can start losing some conference games. I think they have one conference loss in the past six years, or something like that, and they have never lost a home conference WAC game...ever. Let them play BYU, TCU, and Utah every year just so we can shut them up. (Although they may likely beat all three in 2010...) Also I don't think we get the BCS bid without them.



But I'm hoping that we will be part of the new Big 12 anyway, so whatever...
Y
YBrit
Boise is coming in to replace Utah or TCU.



So the conference will still be a 9 team conf. I think when that happens BYU should do this:



1-Go independent, KSL would air games again. Wrubell could do radio and TV simultaneously.



2-Never play Utah or TCU, just to stick it to them.



3-Play a couple games against pac 0, and other conferences excluding some mwc/wac teams and just play 11 games a season. BYU will survive regardless.
Y
Y 4 Ever
YBrit wrote:
and just play 11 games a season.


Blasphemy!
M
Mars


" In light of daily Big Ten/Big 12/Pac-10 expansion rumors, wouldn't it be ironic if the Mountain West Conference is actually the first league to actually increase its membership? Media in a couple of WAC cities have been buzzing with speculation about Boise State's rumored move to the Mountain West...



I anticipated that the MWC would extend an invitation to Boise State in time to add the Broncos in time for the 2011-12 season; the invitation timetable was the only question. I sort of expected something to have happened before now, but the June MWC Presidents' meetings and July 1 WAC invitation deadline are still far enough apart to get ducks in a row. Stay tuned. "



http://www.ksl.com/?nid=498&sid=10779797



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



" Rumblings have surfaced, however, that Boise State could now join the Mountain West Conference. The Broncos, who have been the premier football program in the WAC since joining the conference nine years ago, would give the Mountain West more horsepower in its bid to become an automatic BCS bowl-eligible conference. "History has shown that there's movement in conference membership," Benson said. "Since 1990, only two conference's have seen no movement — the Pac 10 and Ivy League." Benson, who was in Las Cruces briefly Wednesday for the WAC softball tournament, pointed out that despite speculation on BSU's future, the Broncos have not received an invitation from the Mountain West. An invitation would have to come before July 1...



The Broncos hold a 93-17 record and seven conference titles since joining the WAC, along with six wins in nine bowl appearances. Two of those bowl wins came in a BCS bowl game — the 2007 and 2010 Fiesta Bowls... Aside from Boise State, Benson said Louisiana Tech could leave as well, possibly to Conference USA, which would line up more with its geographic location in Ruston, La... Benson said "four or five schools" have expressed interest in joining the WAC. Such schools could include Cal Davis, Cal Poly, Montana, Sacramento State, Portland State and Texas State. "



http://www.lcsun-news.com/las_cruces-sports/ci_15080875



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



" Mountain West mania struck again Friday with comments from ESPN’s Joe Schad that two sources told him Boise State likely would receive an invite this summer and an unsourced report out of Fresno, Calif., calling it a done deal. All of that reporting is speculation based on what the Mountain West board of directors (the school presidents) might do when they meet June 6-8 in Jackson, Wyo. The board of directors makes the final decision. Seven must vote in favor of inviting Boise State to issue an invitation. The Mountain West Joint Council — athletic administrators and faculty athletic representatives — met May 2-5. Expansion was not on the agenda, Mountain West spokesman Javan Hedlund said, but could have been discussed informally among the athletic directors. The Mountain West hasn’t set the agenda for the board of directors meeting yet. Any invitation likely would come from that meeting because the league needs to add Boise State by July 1 to count the Broncos’ accomplishments toward eligibility for a Bowl Championship Series at-large berth during the 2012 and 2013 seasons.



Boise State athletic director Gene Bleymaier said Friday that he doesn’t expect the Broncos to get left on the outside looking in when the expected wave of conference realignments happen. “If we keep doing what we’re doing, they’re not going to be able to leave us out,” he said. “Not when we’re having the success we’re having. Last year, we were a top-50 program in the nation (in the Learfield Sports Directors’ Cup). We have a chance of being close to that again this year. We just need to continue to excel and do everything we can do to grow and get better.” Bleymaier doesn’t think Boise State needs to lobby anyone at this point. There is some speculation that they will be invited next month to join the Mountain West Conference in 2011-12. “All we can do is excel athletically and academically,” he said. “That’s the most anybody can do. The WAC obviously is monitoring the situation. We will all continue to do so and react accordingly. We’re not going to be the ones to initiate change.”



The WAC on Friday said that Boise State needs to notify the league by July 1 if it wants to leave in 2011. That’s different than the date league officials previously provided and different from what’s in the code book on the WAC’s website.



Other items of interest from Bleymaier: He doesn’t expect the WAC presidents to make it more difficult for teams to leave the conference when they meet next month. Currently, a departing team forfeits its share of conference revenues in its final year... He expects the athletic department budget to “grow a little” this year because of salary increases and rising scholarship costs... He’s hopeful Boise State will win the WAC’s Commissioner’s Cup. The Broncos have been boosted by surprising successes from the women’s soccer, swimming and diving and softball teams. They’re in first with four sports to go. “It’s been a very good year for the athletic department,” he said. "



http://voices.idahostatesman.com/2010/05/14/ccripe/bleymaier_talks_about_conference_expansion_athletics_budget_sche#comment-321449



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



It certainly looks like:

The Big Ten will not expand this year (before the July deadline). The PAC-10 will not expand this year. The Big XII will remain unaffected this year. But, the MWC is currently looking like they will be the only conference likely to announce expansion in 2010, the last chance any has to do so that would have any influence on the current 4 year BCS-qualifying period.
Advertisement
C
CrimsonCoug
According to this article, BSU adds something, but not much.

http://www.teamspeedkills.com/2010/4/26/1444886/sec-dominates-bcs-automatic



Adding Boise State would allow the MWC to barely sneak past the Big 10 in BCS Criterion 2 (avg rank of all teams) to hold down the No. 6 spot. Without BSU, the MWC is locked out by being in 7th in C2. There would still be the option of petitioning, but I doubt the petition would result in the BCS conferences deciding to give away millions because a competitor was close.

But C2 is the only area in which adding BSU appreciably helps the MWC. It's also the area where the MWC is weakest. And since the conference can't boot out any original members (gall-durned pokes), the only way to improve the average is by adding to the top. You can't do better than BSU. Adding BSU, then, becomes a vote of no confidence for the bottom schools of the MWC: Wyoming, UNLV, CSU, and SDSU. It means the other schools and even the bottom schools themselves do not believe that the lowest 4 programs can improve enough to offset their miserable marks of the last two years.



So, if everything stays the same--other conference alignments, other conferences successes, the stellar MWC top and the lousy MWC bottom--then adding BSU gets us the MWC a guaranteed in. Barely. Not adding BSU means we appeal and get rejected by the BCS.
T
tdawg
I understand what adding BSU brings to the MWC. But I wonder why BSU would want to leave the WAC. In their current conference they can expect to be invited to the BCS every couple years or so. If they bolt to the MWC, where the top of the league is much better, they may not be able to play in the BCS games as often. Staying in the WAC would allow them to play in more BCS games than if they come over. What am I missing? I just don't see much benefit for BSU to leave.
R
redneckjedi
There would be several benefits for BSU if the MWC gets an auto-bid. First, they would no longer have to run the table to get a BCS bid; all they have to do is win the conference. Second, if they DO run the table, they most likely will get a shot at the title game. It's still not guaranteed (ask Auburn in 2004), but being undefeated in an AQ conference is better than being undefeated in a non-AQ conference. Third, the money. They may not get to a BCS bowl every year, but the conference does, and thus they get more money than they do now from the BCS, even if they never make it back to a BCS bowl again. Fourth, they get better competition. That's what sports should be all about: trying to prove yourself against the best. Beating up on New Mexico State and Idaho every year isn't as satisfying as a conference championship in the MWC would be - especially since that would guarantee you a shot at the very best in a BCS bowl, even if you tanked out of conference. Fifth, exposure. They wouldn't have to play on Tuesdays and Wednesdays to get a nationally televised game, thanks to the MTN. No, it's not as good as ESPN, but is ESPN worth those weird game times? I don't think so.



Also, something worth thinking about, the MWC being an AQ conference would increase the possibility of TWO MWC teams in the BCS. Right now, BSU can't lose a single game if it wants to be in the BCS. As part of an AQ conference, they can either win the conference, or finish with one loss to the conference champion and be high in the rankings and get an at-large spot.
M
Mingjai
redneckjedi wrote:
There would be several benefits for BSU if the MWC gets an auto-bid. First, they would no longer have to run the table to get a BCS bid; all they have to do is win the conference. Second, if they DO run the table, they most likely will get a shot at the title game. It's still not guaranteed (ask Auburn in 2004), but being undefeated in an AQ conference is better than being undefeated in a non-AQ conference. Third, the money. They may not get to a BCS bowl every year, but the conference does, and thus they get more money than they do now from the BCS, even if they never make it back to a BCS bowl again. Fourth, they get better competition. That's what sports should be all about: trying to prove yourself against the best. Beating up on New Mexico State and Idaho every year isn't as satisfying as a conference championship in the MWC would be - especially since that would guarantee you a shot at the very best in a BCS bowl, even if you tanked out of conference. Fifth, exposure. They wouldn't have to play on Tuesdays and Wednesdays to get a nationally televised game, thanks to the MTN. No, it's not as good as ESPN, but is ESPN worth those weird game times? I don't think so.



Also, something worth thinking about, the MWC being an AQ conference would increase the possibility of TWO MWC teams in the BCS. Right now, BSU can't lose a single game if it wants to be in the BCS. As part of an AQ conference, they can either win the conference, or finish with one loss to the conference champion and be high in the rankings and get an at-large spot.


Well said. Coming at this from the BCS side, if it starts looking like the MWC is close to an automatic bid, as the BCS, I would make AQ status contingent on adding BSU to the MWC. Assuming all other conferences as currently constituted, I can't image a bigger disaster for the BCS than bending over backwards to add the MWC, while still having BSU as a potential non-BCS at large qualifier every year. You can say that putting BSU in the MWC isn't going to prevent another WAC school from becoming the next BSU, but I don't see many other WAC schools running table while playing a tough OOC schedule. With what happened to Hawaii in the Sugar Bowl, I think any undefeated WAC school besides BSU is going to get strict scrutiny when it comes to OOC scheduling.



From that standpoint, I think that adding BSU to the MWC would be a no-brainer if only to allow the MWC to say that it can consolidate most of the realistic non-AQ at large teams into one conference. If you can reduce the BCS's headaches, it makes you much more attractive.



EDIT: Darned typos...
Advertisement
C
CrimsonCoug
Mingjai wrote:

From that standpoint, I think that adding BSU to the MWC would be a no-brainer if only to allow the MWC to say that it can consolidate most of the realistic non-AQ at large teams into one conference. If you can reduce the BCS's headaches, it makes you much more attractive.


Really nice point.



And on redneck's Third point, remember that currently AQ conferences not named SEC or BIG-10 get $17M a year (the big dogs get $24M). Assuming the conference payout is the same, you divide $17M by 10 teams in a BSU'd MWC and you can see how no-win BCS teams get a bigger take than a non-BCS team that wins a BCS game (Utah got 1.4 M I believe). Plus, actually playing in a BCS game gets you more than your conference take. So there's a huge money difference for BSU, even without counting tv revs.



But I'm not sure I want BSu in my conference. If our sucky teams were a little less sucky then we wouldn't need them. But grudgingly, it looks like we barely need them. Adding them does just enough good for the conference as a whole to get us an AQ slot..
C
CrimsonCoug
Taking a step back, does BYU really NEED the BCS ? Obviously the two benefits of the BCS are the cachet and the money. We seem to be doing pretty well without it, though. I think the cachet only buys us a chance at a NC without having to go on a 2-year run. But that's it. And though it's a private 'firm' as a church school, the profit motive is perhaps less important. Thoughts?



What would BYU do with more money that they don't do now? Better assistants?
M
Mingjai
CrimsonCoug wrote:
Taking a step back, does BYU really NEED the BCS ? Obviously the two benefits of the BCS are the cachet and the money. We seem to be doing pretty well without it, though. I think the cachet only buys us a chance at a NC without having to go on a 2-year run. But that's it. And though it's a private 'firm' as a church school, the profit motive is perhaps less important. Thoughts?



What would BYU do with more money that they don't do now? Better assistants?


Just because the BYU is a church school doesn't mean the athletic department isn't profit maximizing. If the church had to pump a lot of money into BYU athletics, I'm sure they'd be canceled, because the stated missionary and unstated morale benefits would outweigh the costs.



As for the cachet, BYU is doing okay, but BYU there is still a razor-thin margin for error with making the BCS and a snowball's chance in hell of making the national championship. If joining the BCS helps increase those chances, then BYU should do it.
M
Mars
CrimsonCoug wrote:
Taking a step back, does BYU really NEED the BCS ? Obviously the two benefits of the BCS are the cachet and the money. We seem to be doing pretty well without it, though. I think the cachet only buys us a chance at a NC without having to go on a 2-year run. But that's it. And though it's a private 'firm' as a church school, the profit motive is perhaps less important. Thoughts? What would BYU do with more money that they don't do now? Better assistants?

Or if we reversed this question, why is BYU a I-A football school? Why not just play Div. II? The kids would still get to compete.
T
tripwire
YBrit wrote:
Boise is coming in to replace Utah or TCU.



So the conference will still be a 9 team conf. I think when that happens BYU should do this:



1-Go independent, KSL would air games again. Wrubell could do radio and TV simultaneously.



2-Never play Utah or TCU, just to stick it to them.



3-Play a couple games against pac 0, and other conferences excluding some mwc/wac teams and just play 11 games a season. BYU will survive regardless.


Why do people keep bringing up this horrible idea? BYU would become completely irrelevant on the national stage as an independent. Sure KSL would cover their games for fans in Utah but outside of Utah no one would ever see them play. Not to mention the problems of trying to find 11 or 12 teams willing to play you every year rather than just 4. It's hard enough just to get 1 or 2 marquee teams to play every year. An independent schedule would be weaker than any we have ever had in the MWC or WAC.
Page 1 of 3
This is an archived topic from the original CougarCorner forum. New replies are not accepted.