BSU in the MWC

The only reason I don't want them is because even with them, the Big Six will STILL NOT LET THE MWC IN!!! Everybody keeps saying that "they won't be able to keep us out" if we add Boise. There is simply no validity to this assumption. The BCS brass keep saying there are 3 criteria that come into play when deciding inclusion (or exclusion) to autobid status, one of which being "overall/top-to-bottom" strength, and they won't divulge what percentage each criterion is weighted. That's because now that push has come to shove, all they have to do is weight the whole "overall" strength at, oh, 99.9% since there's no one to oppose them, and OOPS, the MWC doesn't make it this go-round. Don't think they'll be that underhanded? Then you're stupid. They will do WHATEVER it takes to protect their monopoly. Talent doesn't matter. Program success doesn't matter. The obvious fact that MULTIPLE non-AQ schools are much better than multiple "royalty" schools DOES NOT MATTER!!!

The ONLY thing that matters is that the powers that are used to getting all of the money KEEP all of the money. Boise State in our cute little MWC will not change that ONE BIT.



The BIGGEST reason the 5 "non-'s" are, well, the 5 "non-'s" is because they would be a financial LIABILITY if included. They would be a negative Return on Investment. From a financial perspective, think about what the MWC is comprised of.

One Nevada market, one Wyoming market, one New Mexico market and two Utah sub-markets? Just from a population perspective: National draw? Zero.

Two Colorado markets, NEITHER of which are really Denver Metro, and even if they WERE considered to be, that'd put them at 6th and 7th biggest sports draw behind 4 professional teams and a BCS school.

One Southern Cal market (and the team sucks anyway), behind two pro basketball teams, three pro baseball teams, a pro hockey team, one BCS royalty school and another BCS legacy school, and shoot, with the latino population down there, likely even behind the pro SOCCER team. (Ouch.)

One Dallas Metro market. Just in the city alone, behind four pro sports clubs, and probably STILL behind Death Penalty U. You throw in the entire state? That adds 2 more pro basketball teams, another pro football team, another pro baseball team, a royalty BCS school (TWO, if you count Oklahoma, which most Texans do...) along with three other "name" BCS schools, and shoot, you could even argue that 2 or 3 C-USA schools in the state actually get a bigger draw. I mean, this is a team that has had MULTIPLE 11 win seasons in the last few years, and yet their first sellout (of only a 40,000 seat stadium) in a DECADE was NINE games into this DOMINANT season?



There is NOTHING that would make the Big Six powers think the MWC schools could bring any kind of revenue to the system, especially not enough to cover the hit they'd take by having to share the current profits. Same size pie, smaller slices for them. Just AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.

I hate BSU. That's why I want them in the MWC. It's the only way to stop the pissing match of comparing BSU's accomplishments to those of BYU and other MWC teams. Put 'em in the conference, and let the race shake itself out.

GolfDiveNCougs wrote:
The only reason I don't want them is because even with them, the Big Six will STILL NOT LET THE MWC IN!!! Everybody keeps saying that "they won't be able to keep us out" if we add Boise. There is simply no validity to this assumption. The BCS brass keep saying there are 3 criteria that come into play when deciding inclusion (or exclusion) to autobid status, one of which being "overall/top-to-bottom" strength, and they won't divulge what percentage each criterion is weighted.

Read this Q&A with Bill Hancock.



Q. There are three rules listed for determining AQ status. Is each rule given an equal weight? If not, which categories are "worth more?"



A. All are the same weight.



http://www.mwcconnection.com/2009/11/30/1178599/talking-aq-evaluation-with-bcs

Yet considering how often the BCS changes their own rules, I'll believe it when I see it.

The only way I would want BSU in the MWC is if the person or people from the BCS made a public statement that if the MWC added BSU, then it would be guaranteed inclusion in the BCS. I don't forsee that happening. The BCS doesn't want the MWC, it never has and it never will. In fact the BCS didn't want the Pac 10 either. The only reason they included the PAC 10 is because they had the rose bowl and the rose bowl would not join the BCS without the Pac 10/Big 10.

Exactly, adding BSU has to be negotiated with the BCS. Show that this will eliminate the 2nd team from making the BCS like this year.

Mars wrote:

All I ever hear on this board is that we need BSU, we need BSU

Probably because it's true...

Maybe from your point of view.

GolfDiveNCougs wrote:

The BIGGEST reason the 5 "non-'s" are, well, the 5 "non-'s" is because they would be a financial LIABILITY if included. They would be a negative Return on Investment. From a financial perspective, think about what the MWC is comprised of.

One Nevada market, one Wyoming market, one New Mexico market and two Utah sub-markets? Just from a population perspective: National draw? Zero.

Two Colorado markets, NEITHER of which are really Denver Metro, and even if they WERE considered to be, that'd put them at 6th and 7th biggest sports draw behind 4 professional teams and a BCS school.

See your point, and it's a good point. But, I have to say states like Iowa, Oklahoma, Nebraska or even Oregon for that matter aren't popular places to live either. In fact, of the states with the most population Iowa ranks 31 (3,002,555), Oklahoma 29 (3,642,361), Nebraska 39 (1,783,432) and Oregon only at 28 (3,790,060). Puerto Rico has more people than all these states.



Utah is right there with them with 2,736,424 people. Colorado cracks the top 25 at coming in at 22 (4,939,456), and New Mexico comes in at 37 with a population of 1,984,356. Poor Wyoming does have less people than the District of Columbia...outch.



That said, I still see your point. TCU football is not everything in Texas nor is CSU football the only thing to watch in Colorodo. Whereas in Oklahoma, other than rodeos what else is there...

frdbtr wrote:

frdbtr wrote:
All I ever hear on this board is that we need BSU, we need BSU

Probably because it's true...

Maybe from your point of view.

I don't want BSU. Other than a their football team what do they add? Their basketball team is okay every few years. Academically they don't do anything to raise the bar.



Would BSU bring in more money for the conference? Maybe, but I don't think much and with another team in the conference that's just one more team to split revenue with.



I think the MWC can make just as good a case for becoming an automatic qualifying team without BSU in the conference. If another MWC team runs the table next season that's 3 years in the a row the MWC has made it to a BCS bowl.



Even with BSU part of the MWC we'll still be considered top heavy. We'd have to kick a few teams out and add a few others besides BSU to change that.



Besides, do we really want to watch football games on that blue turf... :sick:

Why do we NEED BSU? Our numbers are good enough without them and our conference stacks up top to bottom pretty well against any other conference in the country. If we do NEED BSU, then what do we need them for, exactly?

They say that no conference can be "excluded" who's already in. So as long as the MWC does at least as well as the worst performing conference, this year it's arguably the Big East (again) then I don't see how they can refuse us. And seeing as how the Big East has one fewer team and the final AP results will have the average ranking for the MWC higher than the average ranking of the Big East, I don't see why we need BSU.



I agree, until someone comes out and says "if the MWC adds BSU, we'll guarantee them inclusion" I say let's just keep doing our thing.



By the way, here's how I project the final rankings to look (I reserve the right to modify them following the 'final' BCS game - I refuse to call it the championship game):



1. Texas/Alabama

2. BSU

3. Alabama/Texas

4. TCU

5. Florida

6. Cincinnati

7. Ohio State

8. Iowa

9. Penn State

10. Virginia Tech

11. BYU

12. Oregon

13. Georgia Tech

14. Pittsburgh

15. Nebraska

16. Yewtah

17. Wisconsin

18. LSU

19. Miami

20. Texas Tech

21. USC

22. Mississipi

23. Oklahoma

24. Stanford

25. Central Michigan (barring a loss)

26. Clemson

27. West Virginia

28. Georgia

29. Oregon State

30. Air Force

All I have ever heard is that the Big East won't be kicked out, regardless of whether the MWC out performs them. Only that the MWC can gain inclusion.

Next year you will see why we need BSU in the MWC when TCU is chasing them in the polls all year and won't be able to pass them. If BSU goes undefeated next season and there is not an undefeated team from the SEC and Big 12 again then I think they will get into the national championship game.



So the MWC might have a team go perfect next season and not get in since you probably won't have two non-BCS teams selected two years in a row.



The only way to prevent this from happening is to have them in the conference so that someone can beat then, instead of hoping for Idaho or Utah State to pull off the miracle victory.



Besides if BSU was in the conference and BYU didn't beat them then we could be just as happy about them going to the BCS and we would be about TCU or Utah going...

Wickchad84087 wrote:
If BSU goes undefeated next season and there is not an undefeated team from the SEC and Big 12 again then I think they will get into the national championship game.

Don't worry, BSU isn't going to go undefeated next year.



Everyone who thinks they beat OSU at home and Virginia Tech on the road, raise your hands...



That's what I thought.



Is Boise very good? Yes. Are they THAT good? No.

Mars wrote:

Don't worry, BSU isn't going to go undefeated next year. Everyone who thinks they beat OSU at home and Virginia Tech on the road, raise your hands... That's what I thought. Is Boise very good? Yes. Are they THAT good? No.

I ABSOLUTELY think Boise State and TCU will both go undefeated again next season. Of course, I thought that they would both go undefeated this year last off-season as well, so what do I know? ;)

And I thought that BYU would go undefeated in 1984. And that Utah would go undefeated in 2004 and 2008. And that Boise would go undefeated in 2006. And that....



wow, that IS fun.

I think BSU loses to VT and beats OSU on the turf. Might be in DC, but that is still only 90 minutes from VT campus, and will be full of Hokies. It is an away game against a top 5 team next year. A nice 1-1 split though.



As for BSU joining the MWC, I do not see it. I expect the BCS t oadd the Cotton Bowl soon and increase the number of bids open, thus adding he MWC an as auto bid. With that done, the MWC has no reason to add BSU and split the $$$. Plus, with 1 more at-large bid, this helps BSU and the other BCS schools have shots at getting in. Expect the Cotton Bowl to join the rotation, perhaps in 2011 or 2012.