CougarCorner
Sign in
Archived Topic

Will MWC become the 7th AQ conference in the BCS?

by BigCougsFan · 5/4/2010

Sponsored Advertisementad content
B
BigCougsFan
The Bowl Championship Series is conducting a four-year evaluation process — which began in 2008 and runs through 2011 — to determine if a non-automatic qualifying conference, like the Mountain West Conference, can become the seventh automatic qualifying league.




BCS Executive Director Bill Hancock said,
The Mountain West has had two great years. They have a chance.


http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700029507/BYU-Utah-Utes-football-MWC-has-a-chance-to-obtain-AQ-status.html
S
snoscythe
The MWC "has a chance," yes, but by the recently released criteria, the MWC falls just shy of qualifying were the period to end today.



I don't believe that is a coincidence, nor do I believe that the sudden interest in the PAC-10 expanding to possibly add just Utah is a coincidence either. I can't think of many situations where I'd trust a qualification criteria issued from a monopoly half-way through the review period--when they already have half of the data. Those numbers mean that even if the MWC put together another 4 years like the past 4 (3 teams in the BCS, 2-3 ranked teams to end each season, and if the BCS conferences continued their sub-stellar play the next four years, we would still be on the outside looking in.



All these formulas are is a a giant carrot on a stick dangling in front of our noses. But they have a fail-safe in the event we stretch our necks and improbably get to the carrot. They simply invite Utah out of the conference and yank the carrot out of our mouths, pulling a few teeth as they go. If Utah leaves, the MWC doesn't have a shot, with or without BSU.
M
Mars
snoscythe wrote:
by the recently released criteria, the MWC falls just shy of qualifying were the period to end today.

By the primary method, yes. But the MWC qualifies by the secondary method. And seeing as how we rank ahead of TWO BCS conferences, that would be enough to get us in. They couldn't stand the heat otherwise.
S
snoscythe
Mars wrote:
by the recently released criteria, the MWC falls just shy of qualifying were the period to end today.

By the primary method, yes. But the MWC qualifies by the secondary method. And seeing as how we rank ahead of TWO BCS conferences, that would be enough to get us in. They couldn't stand the heat otherwise.


Which explains the sudden interest in taking Utah. No Utah = no BCS.
B
BYUBALLIN
in my honest opinion utah is not going any place without BYU and vice verse. BYU vs Utah is one of the best rivalries out there. If the MNT does bring in another team, you would hope that team can contribute to more than just one sport.
Sponsored Advertisementad content
J
jonnylingo
snoscythe wrote:
snoscythe wrote:
by the recently released criteria, the MWC falls just shy of qualifying were the period to end today.

By the primary method, yes. But the MWC qualifies by the secondary method. And seeing as how we rank ahead of TWO BCS conferences, that would be enough to get us in. They couldn't stand the heat otherwise.


Which explains the sudden interest in taking Utah. No Utah = no BCS.


I am not sure I buy this because what incentive does the pac10 have to pay the price to save everybody else's butts? They do what makes them the most money not what is best for the bcs as a whole. i would guess adding utah would not happen if it doesn't make more money for them. I doubt that having mwc become an auto qualifier would hurt the pac 10 as much as simply adding one more mouth in their own conference to share the pie with. that said, i am not sure though because i don't have the numbers.



now if it were a broader strategy it may make sense where they each conference takes some of the good teams making the no aq conferences weaker again.



the more likely secenario is these superconferences that just start their own thing all together leaving out even more teams. that is what worries me more than anything.
M
Mars
snoscythe wrote:
Which explains the sudden interest in taking Utah. No Utah = no BCS.

True. But this would have to happen before August this year. AND Colorado would have to go along with it. I don't see either of those things happening.
L
Lawboy
I suspect that the conference changes will be announced late this Fall, but not occur for scheduling until the 2012 season. Just in time for many of these conference to negotiate new terms to TV deals, which I believe end after the 2011 season. At least for the PAC10.



It might get really interesting. If the SEC adds teams, things will get crazy because htey will mostly likely take the 2 Florida teams in the ACC (FSU and Miami). ACC will look to add 2 teams as well. If the Big 10 takes 3 teams, expect 2 to be from the Big 12(ND will be the other, if 3 teams). And then the PAC10 will have to expand.



Basically, the MWC and Big East and C-USA could get raided adding more to the haves and leaving the have nots even further in the dust.



BYU better have a plan in place should we get left behind.
Y
Y 4 Ever
BYUBALLIN wrote:
in my honest opinion utah is not going any place without BYU and vice verse. BYU vs Utah is one of the best rivalries out there.


If the Pac-10 offers Utah, they're GONE - with or without BYU. Rivalry or no. And they'd be stupid not to go. (then again, who ever accused the :utard: of being smart?)



Just like if the Pac-10 invited BYU, but not Utah. Same story.
M
Mingjai
33311710 wrote:
in my honest opinion utah is not going any place without BYU and vice verse. BYU vs Utah is one of the best rivalries out there.


If the Pac-10 offers Utah, they're GONE - with or without BYU. Rivalry or no. And they'd be stupid not to go. (then again, who ever accused the :utard: of being smart?)



Just like if the Pac-10 invited BYU, but not Utah. Same story.


I don't really buy that--it's easier for Utah/TCU/BSU/BYU to get into the BCS as the at-large AQ than it is to get in as the AQ from the Pac 10. They'd be better off in the MWC as an elite MWC team than they'd be as an mid- to upper-tier Pac 10 team, especially if the MWC champ was granted AQ status.



But I think the BCS will only grant the MWC champ AQ status if BSU is a member of the MWC. Otherwise BSU will still remain a thorn in the BCS's side. The really interesting question is if BSU thinks the MWC is likely to get AQ status, would they still want to join the MWC. They've shown that they can get into the BCS just fine as a member of the WAC.
Sponsored Advertisementad content
S
snoscythe
Mingjai wrote:
BYUBALLIN wrote:
in my honest opinion utah is not going any place without BYU and vice verse. BYU vs Utah is one of the best rivalries out there.


If the Pac-10 offers Utah, they're GONE - with or without BYU. Rivalry or no. And they'd be stupid not to go. (then again, who ever accused the :utard: of being smart?)



Just like if the Pac-10 invited BYU, but not Utah. Same story.


I don't really buy that--it's easier for Utah/TCU/BSU/BYU to get into the BCS as the at-large AQ than it is to get in as the AQ from the Pac 10. They'd be better off in the MWC as an elite MWC team than they'd be as an mid- to upper-tier Pac 10 team, especially if the MWC champ was granted AQ status.



But I think the BCS will only grant the MWC champ AQ status if BSU is a member of the MWC. Otherwise BSU will still remain a thorn in the BCS's side. The really interesting question is if BSU thinks the MWC is likely to get AQ status, would they still want to join the MWC. They've shown that they can get into the BCS just fine as a member of the WAC.


If you are in a BCS conference, it doesn't matter. It's milllions upon millions of dollars more flowing into your coffers each year regardless of your on the field performance.



It has nothing to do with winning games, much less championships. It's all about the benjamins.
Y
Y 4 Ever
Mingjai wrote:
BYUBALLIN wrote:
in my honest opinion utah is not going any place without BYU and vice verse. BYU vs Utah is one of the best rivalries out there.


If the Pac-10 offers Utah, they're GONE - with or without BYU. Rivalry or no. And they'd be stupid not to go. (then again, who ever accused the :utard: of being smart?)



Just like if the Pac-10 invited BYU, but not Utah. Same story.


I don't really buy that--it's easier for Utah/TCU/BSU/BYU to get into the BCS as the at-large AQ than it is to get in as the AQ from the Pac 10. They'd be better off in the MWC as an elite MWC team than they'd be as an mid- to upper-tier Pac 10 team, especially if the MWC champ was granted AQ status.


The BCS doesn't matter. It's all about the cash. Utah (or BYU for that matter) will make MORE money just by being a member of the Pac-10 - even if they go to NO bowl game - than they have EVER made before - even in the years where they went to a BCS bowl game.



If the ultimate goal is just to get to a BCS bowl game, then you're right, staying in the MWC makes more sense. But since the goal is MONEY, and to a lesser extent, prestige, if the pac-10 comes calling, :utard: will be "off like a prom dress".



And if the Big-12 came a-knocking on BYU's door - we'd dump the MWC YESTERDAY.
This is an archived topic from the original CougarCorner forum. New replies are not accepted.