BIG MWC Press Conference in 20 minutes

http://twitter.com/rpgagliardi



1145AM MST a press conference is being held where all the MWC Presidents are meeting. This could be the announcement of BSU invite to MWC.

Sounds like MWC currently announced they are not making a decision during the MWC meetings to add Boise State...lotta big fuss for nothin...could still happen before July 1 but sounds like the conference wants to wait to see if something happens with PAC10, BIG10, BIG12.

kiwibacon wrote:
Sounds like MWC currently announced they are not making a decision during the MWC meetings to add Boise State...lotta big fuss for nothin...could still happen before July 1 but sounds like the conference wants to wait to see if something happens with PAC10, BIG10, BIG12.

I'd call that wisdom. BSU adds no revenue to the MWC in the short term, but takes part of the pie. Not a whole lot of TV sets in Boise to acquire the Mtn Network is the problem. Plus, they do not guarantee the MWC a spot at the BCS table. Who even knows what that table looks like in 6 months, anyway.

Lawboy wrote:

Sounds like MWC currently announced they are not making a decision during the MWC meetings to add Boise State...lotta big fuss for nothin...could still happen before July 1 but sounds like the conference wants to wait to see if something happens with PAC10, BIG10, BIG12.

I'd call that wisdom. BSU adds no revenue to the MWC in the short term, but takes part of the pie. Not a whole lot of TV sets in Boise to acquire the Mtn Network is the problem. Plus, they do not guarantee the MWC a spot at the BCS table. Who even knows what that table looks like in 6 months, anyway.

I disagree. Waiting too long would put the MWC in a reactive position. Taking BSU now would make strong case for a BCS conference, and should the BCS conferences expand, the MWC plus BSU as an AQ conference might be enough to encourage targets like Utah or TCU to stay. Sure, BSU will always likely be there, but having BSU in the fold would also mean the MWC could bargain from a position of power in the future--either in expanding the conference more or keeping the conference together. As a BYU fan, I'd much rather be in a MWC comprising of the current members plus BSU that is a BCS conference, rather than being a part of the Big 12 leftovers.



I believe taking BSU is the MWC's dominant strategy from a game theoretic standpoint--it's overall beneficial to the conference no matter what happens down the road.

Story up on ESPN.com:



http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5261053

So all this buildup for nothing...



Didn't see that coming.

I wish they had authorized Hair to expand. Just like the pac-10 did.

BYU offers more to the PAC10 and Big 12 than BSU does to the MWC in terms of revenue potential, and BYU is outside looking in. So the MWC was wise to wait and see, because BSU will still be there wanting in later just as they are now. They are not going anywhere, so no real rush. And adding BSU now guarantees what? Nothing. And since the reason for most of these changes is revenue driven, the MWC should act in the same manner. Adding BSU guarantees no added revenue under the current MWC TV deal, and means less per school. One more mouth to feed that does not generate enough TV-based revenue, or revenue from other sources to make it matter.



If things were to stay the same, adding BSU might help with BCS inclusion. But things may change drastically by December, and patience here is the virtue. If I were BYU, I'd be positioning myself for a Big 12 membership, in the event Missouri or Colorado leave.

The MWC will end up holding the bag like the WAC did last major round of expansion. I almost get the feeling that certain members of the MWC are expecting to be raided, and TCU and Utah's presidents know more than they are willing to let on in meeting. That's a bad thing to me, because I think the MWC with BSU would be well situated to weather the expansion storm and become the 6th BCS conference (the Big East will probably disappear). A more aggressive stance by the conference would do wonders here.

Mingjai wrote:
The MWC will end up holding the bag like the WAC did last major round of expansion. I almost get the feeling that certain members of the MWC are expecting to be raided, and TCU and Utah's presidents know more than they are willing to let on in meeting. That's a bad thing to me, because I think the MWC with BSU would be well situated to weather the expansion storm and become the 6th BCS conference (the Big East will probably disappear). A more aggressive stance by the conference would do wonders here.

Utah would make MILLIONS more in the PAC1.0, and TCU would in the Big 12, no matter how much better the MWC got by staying together and adding BSU. These schools run the AD like a business, and revenue is king. Especially since most of those schools in the MWC are bleeding cash like a sieve.



And for people who think TCU is gone to the Big 12, think again. They add NOTHING to the Big 12. Sure, they have a good football program, like BSU, but they have no fans at all, and their local market is already dominated by Texas, Texas A & M, Texas Tech and Oklahoma. This is about $$$, not teams on the field. TCU got dumped in the old SWC, and the reasons to exclude them are still there. TCU will be in the MWC longer than BYU. If the Big 12 needs a team, BYU will be 1 or 2. With Utah being #1. And if Utah goes PAC1.0, BYU should get a Big 12 offer. Best case for BYU is for Colorado and Utah to go PAC1.0, Missouri to the Big 10, and then BYU can basically expect a Big 12 offer.

In the end, it's probably just delaying the inevitable. Notre Dame and Texas probably aren't going anywhere this summer. The Big Ten doesn't really want anyone other than ND, which means Mizzou and Nebraska are going nowhere, and the Big 12 won't expand. The Pac 10 won't add CU or Utah, because they don't add much compared to the Texas schools that were on the table. The MWC will add BSU before July 1 to get BSU record on the MWC books prior to the next BCS evaluation.

Mingjai wrote:
In the end, it's probably just delaying the inevitable. Notre Dame and Texas probably aren't going anywhere this summer. The Big Ten doesn't really want anyone other than ND, which means Mizzou and Nebraska are going nowhere, and the Big 12 won't expand. The Pac 10 won't add CU or Utah, because they don't add much compared to the Texas schools that were on the table. The MWC will add BSU before July 1 to get BSU record on the MWC books prior to the next BCS evaluation.

I disagree with a couple parts of this. The Big 12 does want ND, but they also want to hold a conference title game, and need 12 schools to do so. They also have a fleixble TV deal and adding certain schools, which then add people signing up for the TV deal could add more $$$ overall. $$$ will decide it. And if the Big 12 ads even 1 team, the PAC10 will then add 2. I still think the first domino will be the Big 10 because I do not see the Texas/Oklahoma schools seriously considering the PAC10. I like BYU's chances of getting a Big 12 invite should Colorado and Missouri jump.

Lawboy wrote:

In the end, it's probably just delaying the inevitable. Notre Dame and Texas probably aren't going anywhere this summer. The Big Ten doesn't really want anyone other than ND, which means Mizzou and Nebraska are going nowhere, and the Big 12 won't expand. The Pac 10 won't add CU or Utah, because they don't add much compared to the Texas schools that were on the table. The MWC will add BSU before July 1 to get BSU record on the MWC books prior to the next BCS evaluation.

I disagree with a couple parts of this. The Big 12 does want ND, but they also want to hold a conference title game, and need 12 schools to do so. They also have a fleixble TV deal and adding certain schools, which then add people signing up for the TV deal could add more $$$ overall. $$$ will decide it. And if the Big 12 ads even 1 team, the PAC10 will then add 2. I still think the first domino will be the Big 10 because I do not see the Texas/Oklahoma schools seriously considering the PAC10. I like BYU's chances of getting a Big 12 invite should Colorado and Missouri jump.

I assume you mean Big Ten, which already has 11 schools and ND would make it content, because it would have their desired school and a playoff. With Notre Dame in the fold, the Big Ten Network would be on every TV in the nation eventually. Nebraska and Mizzou don't add much in terms of TV dollars, neither do Syracuse, Pitt, or Rutgers. I just don't think the Big Ten wants a 12th (other than Notre Dame) as much as it seems, which is why I don't think the Big Ten expands this year.



I'm not sure if the Pac 10 would add anyone if the Big Ten only adds 1 more team. Even if they did, Utah and Colorado don't add much in terms of TV dollars either.

Denver is the #16 largest market, with SLC as #31. So Denver is a nice add. SLC is booming though, so the growth potential is nice. But BYU is also similar on a smaller scale to ND out west with a huge following not in the local market. Large regional base in the west.

Call me Silly, Call my Joe,

but when it comes to the Broncos, I say "no, no, no"



I for one am THRILLED the Broncos were not invited. If for nothing else, any school moving right now might be the snowball that triggers the avalanche BYU would prefer to avoid. While their added football credentials are nice, they don't put us over the BCS hump and all of those rules will likely be changed anyways if the conferences realign. i don't think splitting MWC revenues gives much of an incentive for anyone to stay in the conference, and after getting spanked by an elite TCU this year, I'm not sure we want to deal with another legitimate threat at the top of the conference.



And no one likes Boise. Ew. Boise.

Mingjai wrote:

I believe taking BSU is the MWC's dominant strategy from a game theoretic standpoint--it's overall beneficial to the conference no matter what happens down the road.

For the conference, yes, but the conference isn't deciding. Individual schools decide, and if enough do, the invite comes. It is certainly not a dominant strategy for TCU or Utah, and perhaps not BYU to invite BSU; there's too much uncertainty. If the BCS does not invite the MWC, each of TCU, Utah and BYU could potentially go to a BCS game on its own now. Each has a lower chance at doing so with a game against BSU.



The MWC is already over the hump in 2 of the 3 BCS categories without BSU. The Broncos only improve the overall rankings of all 9 (10) teams in the conference. But strong as they are, the Bronco boost gets severely diluted across ten teams, and iirc barely nudges the conference overall--though that tiny nudge is sufficient to include the MWC as qualifying to petition the conference. If the next two years produce exactly the same conference results as the previous two years then the MWC gets a chance to make its case. Granted, if the MWC can only do one thing to improve its chances of getting in to the BCS, adding BSU is the clear way to go (seeing as how kicking out Wyoming isn't an option). But it's a knife edge as to whether adding BSU would work--that's if the status quo holds for all other conferences and you think the BCS will be gracious in accepting the guys who've been the bur in their saddle to join the table.



On the other hand, if the status quo is disrupted and other conferences realign, all bets are off. We don't know who we're competing against in terms of the makeup of other conferences or even what we're competing against--it's not clear that the BCS and its rules as presently constituted would not also change (I'd put heavy odds that they would).

So at this point, I'd say that cumulatively the odds of the conference NOT being invited to the BCS (with or without BSU) are at least as great as the odds that the conference would be invited with BSU.



So for those teams who have no realistic chance of winning out and getting into a BCS game, yes, inviting BSU is a dominant strategy. But for 2, arguably 3 teams in the conference, it is not. In fact, because of the increased difficulty in getting to a BCS game by having to go through BSU, it is very nearly a dominated strategy for those 3 schools.



That's why you hear the ADs from lesser schools (eg SDSU) speaking positively about BSU's chances, and you hear much more caution from the stronger schools (eg Utah).



Fortunately, there isn't a pure principal-agent problem. The schools decide--by near unanimous vote--not the conference. In my view, as the weakest of the best--good but not quite good enough to get to a BCS game yet--BYU holds the cards. And the Cougar admin has been deafeningly quiet.

Question: with adding BSU would that improve recruiting in the conference? Would kids think the conference is better and have more of an interest in coming to one of the teams? Would that help BYU sign some of the top LDS talent with another strong conferrence game?

Another question. does the MWC expansion have any impact on what the other conferences do? If the MWC does not make up their mind by Jully 1 does BSU roll the dice and give notice to the WAC not knowing where they are going? They could go independent if the MWC changes their mind. They could go back to the WAC. In 2011 the MWC would know if they needed BSU. This would be very risky for BSU, but it gives time to see how things play out and move into the MWC to get the bid.

CrimsonCoug wrote:

I believe taking BSU is the MWC's dominant strategy from a game theoretic standpoint--it's overall beneficial to the conference no matter what happens down the road.

For the conference, yes, but the conference isn't deciding. Individual schools decide, and if enough do, the invite comes. It is certainly not a dominant strategy for TCU or Utah, and perhaps not BYU to invite BSU; there's too much uncertainty. If the BCS does not invite the MWC, each of TCU, Utah and BYU could potentially go to a BCS game on its own now. Each has a lower chance at doing so with a game against BSU.

I agree with you that the analysis changes when the conference is viewed as an aggregation of schools each faced with different payoffs.



One thing that I am fairly sure of is this: if the BCS remains more-or-less as currently constituted--i.e., no conference is bigger than 12 teams--and BYU, TCU, and Utah all remain in the MWC, I think BSU joining the MWC would be a condition of MWC AQ status in the BCS. From the BCS standpoint, the nightmare is the MWC champ and BSU qualifying at the same time. BSU in the MWC makes it so that only one of BYU, Utah, TCU, and BSU qualify. It would be hard to imagine a WAC, CUSA, or MAC team getting high enough in the BCS standings playing the schedules they play.

CougarClaw wrote:
Call me Silly, Call my Joe,

but when it comes to the Broncos, I say "no, no, no"



I for one am THRILLED the Broncos were not invited.

I'm from eastern Idaho, and I absolutely hate Boise State about on the same level as I hate the Wyoming Cowpokes. I also know the revenues rule the day in college football. That said, the sports fan in me would love to see a team that plays exciting football added to BYU's conference slate. It reminds me of when Fresno State was added 9-team WAC or when TCU was added to the 8-team MWC. I take some pride when MWC schools (except Utah) do well, and it would be a little nice to get some satisfaction in BSU upsetting someone, rather than being envious.



But expected payouts are what we are optimizing here, so one can't let increased sporting competition get in the way of increased turnover...