8 or 9 Conference Games?

[Mars]

Which do you prefer in the new 10-team Mountain West, 8 conference games a year or 9...


-A Round Robin (PAC-10 / poor computer rating style)?

or

-Skip a Team (Big Ten / high rankings style)?


Personally, I don't think the MWC has room to damage our potential BCS numbers even a little bit. Trading in 5 automatic MWC losses for the chance to get 10 OOC wins helps. Everyone just needs to schedule a current WAC team instead.

[SpiffCoug]

I voted for 8 because I don't think it's fair to give half the conference five home games and the other half four.

[imuakahuku]

I voted for 8 because I don't think it's fair to give half the conference five home games and the other half four.

That would be my thinking too. It would be great to have two undefeateds IF we were a BCS conf. But the pundits will downplay the two in the MWC.

[scott715]

Too soon to think about. We might be a 12 to 16 team conference by then.

[Mars]

I'm surprised. I obviously like 8, but I thought everyone else wanted to be like the PAC-10.

[SpiffCoug]

I'm surprised. I obviously like 8, but I thought everyone else wanted to be like the PAC-10.

I just want PAC-10-like money.

[gmj81]

I personally hate the idea of naming a champion that hasn't played everyone in the conference and have always opposed conference championship games. That said, I think we should play the same game that the BCS conferences are: change the rules to your benefit. If we play 8 instead of 9, there is a greater possibility that we get two undefeated teams and continue to disrupt the faulty BCS system.

But I also agree with kitic that it is unfair for some teams in the conference to get 5 home games while others only get 4 which is why I've always like a conference with an odd number of teams (9 or 11).