CougarCorner
Sign in
Archived Topic

MWC Expansion Rumors - BCS Autobid

by UVACoug · 11/12/2009

Sponsored Advertisementad content
C
CAFB_04-12
Saw this on Cougar Outpost: http://www.timesleader.com/sports/Boise_State_not_the_answer_for_the_Mountain_West_analysis_11-16-2009.html



The gist is that the MWC would do better to wait to the last minute to add BSU so that they can continue to rack up WAC titles and top 10 finishes. The evaluation year is 2012 (eval period of 2008-2011; is this correct?) That way all BSUs wins would count toward meeting the auto-bid criteria.



This may have been answered already. If the MWC meets the auto-bid criteria in 2012 does that mean that a current BCS conference has to be dropped? Or do they just at a 7th conference?
C
cachevalleycougar
CAFB_04-12 wrote:



This may have been answered already. If the MWC meets the auto-bid criteria in 2012 does that mean that a current BCS conference has to be dropped? Or do they just at a 7th conference?


Most likely they'll just add a 7th. Once you're in the club, it's hard to get kicked out.
S
SpiffCoug
CAFB_04-12 wrote:
Saw this on Cougar Outpost: http://www.timesleader.com/sports/Boise_State_not_the_answer_for_the_Mountain_West_analysis_11-16-2009.html



The gist is that the MWC would do better to wait to the last minute to add BSU so that they can continue to rack up WAC titles and top 10 finishes. The evaluation year is 2012 (eval period of 2008-2011; is this correct?) That way all BSUs wins would count toward meeting the auto-bid criteria.



This may have been answered already. If the MWC meets the auto-bid criteria in 2012 does that mean that a current BCS conference has to be dropped? Or do they just at a 7th conference?


They would simply a 7th conference instead of dropping a conference. The BCS evaluation period is only to see if another conference is "BCS" worthy. It does not examine to see if any of the current members are still BCS worthy.



And if the MWC is to add Boise the inviation would have to come this off-season. When the MWC split away from the WAC they announced it in the spring/summer of 1998. They did not start play until 1999. So for Boise to count in the 2008-2011 evaluation, they would need to be a member of the MWC during part of that evaluation. An invite in 2010 would likely mean Boise starting to play in 2011 - the final year of the evaluation. It also means that the MWC will not be able to count either of Utah's 2004 or Boise's 2005 season BCS bids.
W
wazzucoug97
I don't know if this will put the speculation on this thread to bed (specifically regarding the addition of BSU to bolster our "numbers") but yesterday on 1280 (SLC Radio) they had Graham Watson of ESPN on and they addressed this subject. The compelling thing she said was that someone crunched the numbers for qualifying as a BCS conference and added USC to the MWC and it did not qualify us. Thus adding BSU does nothing. In her opinion it was the bottom feeders that were dragging us down. So it isn't about getting more strength at the top it's about the bottom half winning some OOC games with some consistency.



Accomplishing that feat may be quite the hurdle :skeptic:
C
cachevalleycougar
wazzucoug97 wrote:
I don't know if this will put the speculation on this thread to bed (specifically regarding the addition of BSU to bolster our "numbers") but yesterday on 1280 (SLC Radio) they had Graham Watson of ESPN on and they addressed this subject. The compelling thing she said was that someone crunched the numbers for qualifying as a BCS conference and added USC to the MWC and it did not qualify us. Thus adding BSU does nothing. In her opinion it was the bottom feeders that were dragging us down. So it isn't about getting more strength at the top it's about the bottom half winning some OOC games with some consistency.



Accomplishing that feat may be quite the hurdle :skeptic:


Wyoming needs to stop scheduling Texas!
Sponsored Advertisementad content
I
imuakahuku
IIRC our bottom feeders haven't been doing that bad in OOC games. WY beat TN and VA, UNLV beat AZ St.and Iowa St., NM beat AZ 2x, CSU beat Colorado. These are the BCS wins that our "Bottom" feeders have had. They have won even more against the "non-bcs" teams. I wonder how our bottom feeders compare to the bcs bottom feeders against other BCS ooc games (if they even play any :angry: )
M
mormonrasta
imuakahuku wrote:
IIRC our bottom feeders haven't been doing that bad in OOC games. WY beat TN and VA, UNLV beat AZ St.and Iowa St., NM beat AZ 2x, CSU beat Colorado. These are the BCS wins that our "Bottom" feeders have had. They have won even more against the "non-bcs" teams. I wonder how our bottom feeders compare to the bcs bottom feeders against other BCS ooc games (if they even play any :angry: )


MWC "bottom feeders" (teams that are below .500 in conference play) are 9-17 .346 against all BCS conference teams and Notre Dame over the last 5 seasons which would tie the conference for 3rd compared to the other BCS conferences.





SEC bottom feeders" are 13-19 .406

Big East 13-24 .351

Big 12 9-17 .346

Big 10 12-23 .342

ACC 11-26 .297

Pac 10 8-20 .285

WAC 1-26 .037



Ironically it is the good to average teams that are letting the MWC down. Here are the numbers for .500 or better teams in conference play against BCS conference teams and Notre Dame over the last 5 years.



Pac 10 35-15 .700

SEC 38-22.633

Big East 32-22 .592

ACC 46-37 .554

Big 12 30-27 .526

Big 10 30-29.508

MWC 26-27 .490

WAC 15-47 .241
B
BYUROCKS
mormonrasta wrote:
IIRC our bottom feeders haven't been doing that bad in OOC games. WY beat TN and VA, UNLV beat AZ St.and Iowa St., NM beat AZ 2x, CSU beat Colorado. These are the BCS wins that our "Bottom" feeders have had. They have won even more against the "non-bcs" teams. I wonder how our bottom feeders compare to the bcs bottom feeders against other BCS ooc games (if they even play any :angry: )


MWC "bottom feeders" (teams that are below .500 in conference play) are 9-17 .346 against all BCS conference teams and Notre Dame over the last 5 seasons which would tie the conference for 3rd compared to the other BCS conferences.





SEC bottom feeders" are 13-19 .406

Big East 13-24 .351

Big 12 9-17 .346

Big 10 12-23 .342

ACC 11-26 .297

Pac 10 8-20 .285

WAC 1-26 .037



Ironically it is the good to average teams that are letting the MWC down. Here are the numbers for .500 or better teams in conference play against BCS conference teams and Notre Dame over the last 5 years.



Pac 10 35-15 .700

SEC 38-22.633

Big East 32-22 .592

ACC 46-37 .554

Big 12 30-27 .526

Big 10 30-29.508

MWC 26-27 .490

WAC 15-47 .241


Dang, BYU losing to FSU does not help on that stat =( or SDUS losing to ND last year.
W
wazzucoug97
A few days ago I was looking at SEC conference standings and noticed a few teams with records like 2-4 or 3-4 in conference but 6-4 or 7-4 overall. These were bottom 1/3 teams in the SEC that will be going bowling. This is the problem. These conferences have bad teams that in conference are lucky to get 2-3 wins but because they won their OCC games (all 4 of them) they are going bowling still. I think the SEC has 10 teams with at least 6 wins... MWC has what 4 with a potential of 5..... UNM and CSU are killing us this year.
S
Schmoe
wazzucoug97 wrote:
A few days ago I was looking at SEC conference standings and noticed a few teams with records like 2-4 or 3-4 in conference but 6-4 or 7-4 overall. These were bottom 1/3 teams in the SEC that will be going bowling. This is the problem. These conferences have bad teams that in conference are lucky to get 2-3 wins but because they won their OCC games (all 4 of them) they are going bowling still. I think the SEC has 10 teams with at least 6 wins... MWC has what 4 with a potential of 5..... UNM and CSU are killing us this year.


It's because NONE of our teams can get away with playing four cream puffs, ever. I'm not saying that all SEC teams do, but quite a few like to use the "our in conf is SO tough, waahhh." If we played the same teams we'd get knocked all year for scheduling terrible teams.
Sponsored Advertisementad content
W
wazzucoug97
Schmoe wrote:
A few days ago I was looking at SEC conference standings and noticed a few teams with records like 2-4 or 3-4 in conference but 6-4 or 7-4 overall. These were bottom 1/3 teams in the SEC that will be going bowling. This is the problem. These conferences have bad teams that in conference are lucky to get 2-3 wins but because they won their OCC games (all 4 of them) they are going bowling still. I think the SEC has 10 teams with at least 6 wins... MWC has what 4 with a potential of 5..... UNM and CSU are killing us this year.


It's because NONE of our teams can get away with playing four cream puffs, ever. I'm not saying that all SEC teams do, but quite a few like to use the "our in conf is SO tough, waahhh." If we played the same teams we'd get knocked all year for scheduling terrible teams.


Yup, another commentary on how bad the system sucks. Maybe instead of Texas WYO should play Baylor, Weber, Idaho State, and WAZZU.... They could probably go 4-0 or 3-1 and then pickup 2-3 wins in conference.... I think the problem is that they are picking up the big payout games like Texas, etc. that are not winable and while it is helping fund their programs it is dragging the conference down when they get pasted.
8
88Coug
Schmoe wrote:
A few days ago I was looking at SEC conference standings and noticed a few teams with records like 2-4 or 3-4 in conference but 6-4 or 7-4 overall. These were bottom 1/3 teams in the SEC that will be going bowling. This is the problem. These conferences have bad teams that in conference are lucky to get 2-3 wins but because they won their OCC games (all 4 of them) they are going bowling still. I think the SEC has 10 teams with at least 6 wins... MWC has what 4 with a potential of 5..... UNM and CSU are killing us this year.


It's because NONE of our teams can get away with playing four cream puffs, ever. I'm not saying that all SEC teams do, but quite a few like to use the "our in conf is SO tough, waahhh." If we played the same teams we'd get knocked all year for scheduling terrible teams.


The bottom of the MWC should schedule like the SEC, Big 12, ACC, etc --- 4 creampuffs. After all, this conference rankings are based upon wins and losses, so let's copy the big boys (except the Pac-10) and get the wins. NM needs to stop playing BCS schools, as does Wyoming (even if they had some wins over big schools over the years). So SDSU, schedule the Sun Belt and the MAC, not the Pac-10. Up the win totals. Let the big boys in conference play the real games....
M
Mars
CougarPeasant wrote:
Another reason not to add just BSU even if it means getting an automatic BCS bid: Their fans will constantly remind the rest of the conference that the MWC only got its BCS bid because of BSU. The blue carpet and their fans are bad enough, but do we really want to give them than extra bragging right?

Do we really want to hurt ourselves in order to not help a rival? That's pretty bad.
M
Mars
CAFB_04-12 wrote:
The MWC would do better to wait to the last minute to add BSU so that they can continue to rack up WAC titles and top 10 finishes. The evaluation year is 2012 (eval period of 2008-2011; is this correct?) That way all BSUs wins would count toward meeting the auto-bid criteria.

True. But BSU has to play one year in the WAC after announcing that they are leaving. Thus, they join the MWC summer of 2010, play in the WAC in 2010, play in the MWC in 2011, and help the MWC's numbers at the end of that season. That's the idea, so adding them this summer makes sense.
M
Mars
kitic77 wrote:
They would simply a 7th conference instead of dropping a conference. The BCS evaluation period is only to see if another conference is "BCS" worthy. It does not examine to see if any of the current members are still BCS worthy.

This is simply not true and has been refuted countless times recently.
Sponsored Advertisementad content
M
Mars
imuakahuku wrote:
IIRC our bottom feeders haven't been doing that bad in OOC games.

Disagree. Mid-tier losses like Air Force to Navy every year hurt us. Other losses, such as SDSU-Idaho, CSU-Idaho, Wyoming-Colorado, and New Mexico-NMSU absolutely KILL us.
M
Mars
wazzucoug97 wrote:
someone crunched the numbers for qualifying as a BCS conference and added USC to the MWC and it did not qualify us. Thus adding BSU does nothing. In her opinion it was the bottom feeders that were dragging us down. So it isn't about getting more strength at the top it's about the bottom half winning some OOC games with some consistency. Accomplishing that feat may be quite the hurdle

This is true. Boise State helps the MWC, but not near enough... right now. Even USC isn't enough. But this year isn't over yet, and there are two more to go as well.



If it was a one-year eval, 2008 WAS enough. We just need TCU to finish undefeated, for Utah and BYU to finish ranked (the regular season, as polls don't matter), and to keep that up for two more seasons. Do that and add Boise State and it IS enough, even without USC!
B
BoiseBYU
wazzucoug97 wrote:
I don't know if this will put the speculation on this thread to bed (specifically regarding the addition of BSU to bolster our "numbers") but yesterday on 1280 (SLC Radio) they had Graham Watson of ESPN on and they addressed this subject. The compelling thing she said was that someone crunched the numbers for qualifying as a BCS conference and added USC to the MWC and it did not qualify us. Thus adding BSU does nothing. In her opinion it was the bottom feeders that were dragging us down. So it isn't about getting more strength at the top it's about the bottom half winning some OOC games with some consistency.



Accomplishing that feat may be quite the hurdle :skeptic:


How about adding Florida? Maybe the Colts? There's gotta be a way here....Seriously, how about we throw all the strategery out and just say: adding BSU, Tulsa and FSU, or UNR, or Houston would make our conference much more interesting, fun and competitive, especially in the years when we would not have to play WY and be done with it....
W
Wickchad
88Coug wrote:
wazzucoug97 wrote:
A few days ago I was looking at SEC conference standings and noticed a few teams with records like 2-4 or 3-4 in conference but 6-4 or 7-4 overall. These were bottom 1/3 teams in the SEC that will be going bowling. This is the problem. These conferences have bad teams that in conference are lucky to get 2-3 wins but because they won their OCC games (all 4 of them) they are going bowling still. I think the SEC has 10 teams with at least 6 wins... MWC has what 4 with a potential of 5..... UNM and CSU are killing us this year.


It's because NONE of our teams can get away with playing four cream puffs, ever. I'm not saying that all SEC teams do, but quite a few like to use the "our in conf is SO tough, waahhh." If we played the same teams we'd get knocked all year for scheduling terrible teams.


The bottom of the MWC should schedule like the SEC, Big 12, ACC, etc --- 4 creampuffs. After all, this conference rankings are based upon wins and losses, so let's copy the big boys (except the Pac-10) and get the wins. NM needs to stop playing BCS schools, as does Wyoming (even if they had some wins over big schools over the years). So SDSU, schedule the Sun Belt and the MAC, not the Pac-10. Up the win totals. Let the big boys in conference play the real games....


They should schedule creampuffs like Idaho and New Mexico State....



On second thought, can they just play New Mexico and UNLV over and over again...
S
SpiffCoug
Mars wrote:
They would simply a 7th conference instead of dropping a conference. The BCS evaluation period is only to see if another conference is "BCS" worthy. It does not examine to see if any of the current members are still BCS worthy.

This is simply not true and has been refuted countless times recently.


Not true. Please see Greg Wrubell's from two months ago. (http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=498&sid=7919281)
Page 4 of 6
This is an archived topic from the original CougarCorner forum. New replies are not accepted.