Please NO!

[Archaea]

http://www.mwcboard.com/www/forums/i...howtopic=22575

Bobby Curran reports on his radio show that multiple sources told him while he was watching the UH vs La Tech basketball game, that the MWC is adding Boise State, Fresno State, and Nevada. The WAC would respond by adding Southern Utah, Sacramento State, UC Davis, and Cal Poly.

Bobby Curran then said that he did not believe the rumor, but acknowledged that it may be because he is a Hawaii fan and simply did not want to believe it

[MikeWaters]

I'm trying to imagine, if I am the MWC presidents, and I know that Big 10 expansion is coming, and the dominoes might start falling, do I feel compelled to act first?

Football-wise, Boise State would be a solid addition if they can keep Chris Peterson or otherwise keep their success going. But I can't see BSU ever going to the Pac 10, and thus they will be available whether Big 10 and Pac 10 expand or not.

[MikeWaters]

TCU and Patterson
BSU and Peterson
Utah and Whittingham
BYU and Mendenhall

That is a solid conference. Auto-bid IMO.

Adding 3 teams would mean going to 12, and it would mean having divisions and a conference championship. That could be a mess. How would you split them up?


Regional Proximity Pairs

New Mexico
TCU

SDSU
FSU

Nevada
UNLV

Colorado State
Air Force

Wyoming
BSU

BYU
Utah

If you went North/South, the problem is that BYU, Utah and Boise State would be in the same division.

And then if you went East/West, if you don't split up BYU and Utah, you would have 3 of the big 4 in the same division. TCU, BYU, and Utah in the East for example.

Didn't the old giant WAC have some kind of rotating divisions? Where the divisions changed every year?

I really have a hard time seeing BYU and Utah being broken up in different divisions, which would mean that they would not be guaranteed to play each other. The Big 12 broke up the traditional rivalry of OU and Nebraska. That's been bad for Nebraska I think. It has decreased their national exposure. But if you had BYU and Utah in the same division, that would mean they would never play each other for the conference championship. Texas and OU never play for the conference championship, and it doesn't seem to be a problem for them.

It's hard for me to see how they would work this out. I think inevitably, 3 of the top 4 would be in the same division. And that would make for an awfully tough division.

I think I would prefer adding Boise State by kicking another team out. Like Wyoming.

[ute4ever]

Would the MWC allow Boise State to keep recruiting Prop 48 players?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Didn't the old giant WAC have some kind of rotating divisions? Where the divisions changed every year?

Yes, and the loss of old rivalries was one of the main reasons cited for creating the MWC in the first place.

Expanding to 12 is just another step to becoming the 16-team nightmare WAC of 1999.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Tex

Yes, and the loss of old rivalries was one of the main reasons cited for creating the MWC in the first place.

Expanding to 12 is just another step to becoming the 16-team nightmare WAC of 1999.

If you get Boise State, then the MWC might pull out of the non-BCS consortium that shares the pot of money. The MWC might decide to go it alone. Becoming something between BCS and non-BCS.

So in this case there are strong financial considerations. Plus Boise State is a geographic fit with the conference, strong name recognition.

However, all those Boise State games that were on ESPN will disappear if BSU is in the MWC. Ironically, their profile might decrease.

[ute4ever]

Originally Posted by Tex

Yes, and the loss of old rivalries was one of the main reasons cited for creating the MWC in the first place.

Expanding to 12 is just another step to becoming the 16-team nightmare WAC of 1999.

The addition of Boise State makes the MWC a lock to receive a BCS auto-bid. They would have 12 teams, a conference championship game, and be on equal footing with the six BCS conferences. Nobody wants 16 teams but the strongest conferences have an advantage with 12 teams and a title game.

The ACC, Big 12 and SEC conferences keep receiving a bump in the final standings because of their conference title games, and that has the Big East, Big 10 and Pac 10 itching to follow suit. There's been statements released by conference chancellors indicating of a lot of reshuffling coming up in the next couple of years: Utah and Colorado to the Pac-10, Missouri to the Big 10, Houston and TCU to the Big 12.

[MikeWaters]

I'm sorry, there i sno way that Houston and TCU go to the Big 12.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

If you get Boise State, then the MWC might pull out of the non-BCS consortium that shares the pot of money. The MWC might decide to go it alone. Becoming something between BCS and non-BCS.

So in this case there are strong financial considerations. Plus Boise State is a geographic fit with the conference, strong name recognition.

However, all those Boise State games that were on ESPN will disappear if BSU is in the MWC. Ironically, their profile might decrease.

Originally Posted by ute4ever

The addition of Boise State makes the MWC a lock to receive a BCS auto-bid. They would have 12 teams, a conference championship game, and be on equal footing with the six BCS conferences. Nobody wants 16 teams but the strongest conferences have an advantage with 12 teams and a title game.

The ACC, Big 12 and SEC conferences keep receiving a bump in the final standings because of their conference title games, and that has the Big East, Big 10 and Pac 10 itching to follow suit. There's been statements released by conference chancellors indicating of a lot of reshuffling coming up in the next couple of years: Utah and Colorado to the Pac-10, Missouri to the Big 10, Houston and TCU to the Big 12.

I'm not opposed to adding Boise State, but I don't see the benefits of 12 teams. A championship game is not worth it, IMO.

[ute4ever]

Originally Posted by Tex

I'm not opposed to adding Boise State, but I don't see the benefits of 12 teams. A championship game is not worth it, IMO.

Year after year, the teams that win their championship game (a 13th game) receive a lift in the final poll and end up in the BCS title game, ahead of the teams who played only 12 games. Last year, Texas, TCU and Cincinnati were all 12-0 and ranked side-by-side, and Texas won their 13th game and received the bump over the other two who sat idle. In 2008, Florida won their 13th game and jumped over idle Texas. In 2007, LSU was #7 (with two losses!), won their 13th game and jumped over five teams to #2. In 2006, Florida jumped over idle Michigan. In 2003, LSU jumped over idle USC.