# The future of the MWC



## Guest (Jan 4, 2010)

With all the buzz about the MWC lately, I have read several college football analysts predicting that the conference could become an AQ in 2012 or 2013, and the MWC commissioner, Craig Thompson, (south end of a horse that he is) is lobbying hard for this. Now the point of this discussion is not to argue whether or not this COULD happen, but whether or not it SHOULD. If you are an MWC fan do you want to see to the conference sell out and join the BCS cartel, or would you rather see the MWC continue to be a force for change, and bring about the end of the corrupt BCS system?


----------



## STEVO (Sep 13, 2007)

I am a huge utes fan, and I like the mountain west, but i dont think that they deserve a automatic bid to the big show. I dont think that ANY conference deserves an automatic bid. The ONLY way to settle it for a true natl champion is to have a playoff system. Until that happens being the "national champion" doesnt mean crap as long as there are 2 or 3 other un-defeated teams around. There is no reason they are unable to take the top 16 teams in the country and see who is really the best. 

I hope that one day the rest of the country gets tired of their crap and people actually force them to PLAY for a national championship.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

I don't like the BCS system at all and would prefer a playoff system, but if you can't beat them join them. :mrgreen: :lol:


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

Yes, the BCS system sucks and a play-off system would help settle things on the field. The National Championship title is a joke. It's like a gold medal in figure skating where a panel of judges decide who is champ. :lol: :lol: How embarrassing. I know it's not the the players fault they have a crappy system, but I sure hope in a few years we get the system changed. 

I also don't think any team should have a preseason ranking either. NO team has even ripped a fart on the field yet against another team, but somehow someone thinks they will be good.

MWC should get an AQB.


----------



## mikevanwilder (Nov 11, 2008)

The BCS is not going to change anytime soon, so I say let the MWC get an AB. They are better than the Big East and this year better than the pac-10 and dare I say the Big 10! I don't think they will be considered unless they drop one of the bottom dwellers like San Diego St, I think the rest actually can be good, then add Boise St. I believe if they do this the BCS will have to make them a BCS conference.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

I say Boise St should join the MWC and San Diego ST and New Mexico go the WAC.

BUT then again New Mexico almost beat BYU if the angels didnt help guide the ball into the goal post 4 times.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

coyoteslayer said:


> I say Boise St should join the MWC and San Diego ST and New Mexico go the WAC.
> 
> BUT then again New Mexico almost beat BYU if the angels didnt help guide the ball into the goal post 4 times.


The only bad thing about somebody like Boise or as somebody suggested on Facebook (Gordy), is that bringing somebody like USC (to avoid further embarrassment) to the MWC is that it won't help teams like Utah or BYU that are dependable about one thing... horrible inconsistency. Adding tougher competition to the conference won't do them any favors, unless on the odd year, they happen to squeak by and beat a tough team. Do it consistently and they might have a gripe. Since BSU has won their BCS games the last couple times... why doesn't the WAC have a gripe about not being an AQ conference? Utah is the only team that has represented the MWC well on the big stage... one team. BSU has done the same thing. The other teams need to step up for any consideration for an AQ to even cross the minds of the BCS committee. Like Jahan said, the BCS isnt' going anywhere for a while, so why not join them. Oh wait... the MWC commissioner DID join them... signing off on the BCS for another few years. :wink:

And CS... you can't rub the "angels on the goal line" in the Y fans face too much.... the Utes have had their share of close calls as well. :wink:


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

- Any argument about the BCS being unfair doesn't go away if the MWC joins the corruption. So to complain about how unfair it is but then cry to become part of it is pure hypocracy.

- Why would Boise State join the MWC? Right now, they are ESPN 7-8 times each year, they have a strong fan base that is growing in its own right, and it is easier to be king of the WAC instead of part of the "big 3" or "big 4" within the MWC that they would be. AND, they've gone to the Fiesta Bowl TWICE playing the weak a** schedule of the WAC. So what is in it for them to join the MWC? Games on the MTN. Oh goody.

- I do not want to see the MWC join the BCS. As it stands now, a MWC team can truly play their way into the game. It is the outsiders that have to earn their way in. If they get the automatic bid, then they'll be in it like Georgia Tech this year, or teams like Pitt (3-loss teams but still win the conference title). As it is, we can hate the BCS and cry foul, but still feel ethically superior because the only way a MWC team gets in is by going undefeated and proving they have earned it. Join the party and we are no longer better than the BCSewage pond, we are just another in the mix.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> - Any argument about the BCS being unfair doesn't go away if the MWC joins the corruption. So to complain about how unfair it is but then cry to become part of it is pure hypocracy.
> 
> So what is the option? Hope that the BCS system will finally go away? That won't happen anytime soon.
> 
> ...


So far there have only been two teams in the MWC that have had an opportunity to play in a BCS game. With an at large bid BYU would have had a least one chance so far.

The fact is no matter how corrupt and annoying the BCS is, it isn't going anywhere anytime soon. In an ideal world the best teams would have the opportunity to play each other, but in the current system it usually doesn't work out that way. If the MWC got an automatic bid they could get a slice of the bigger checks and a chance every year to play in the big games until the "BCSewage" is finally eradicated.


----------



## coyoteslayer (Sep 10, 2007)

I think Boise ST would want more competition so it makes it easier for them to make a statement. YES, they made a statement last night when they beat TCU, but it isn't going to be enough for them as long as they keep having a very easy cupcake schedule.

I would welcome Boise ST in the MWC. BYU and the UTES would just need to work harder and play better football.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

On a side note BSU is only losing one Senior starter, so they are basically returning every starter next year, they could potentially make a run at the NC next year. They should start off ranked in the top 5 next year and if they win out, it could get interesting. They also play Virginia Tech next year, that would be a good win.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

TCU is in pretty much the same boat. They lose like three starters or something like that. Both of those teams will start in the top 10. And, both should win out - again.

Back to BSU joining the MWC - Why? What is in it for them? Even if the MWC gets an automatic bid - their chances of winning the MWC are much less than going undefeated in the WAC, so they would still have a better chance at a BCS game in the WAC. And unless the TV gods intervene, they'll continue to get better national exposure than any MWC team. So what's in for them to join?


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> - Any argument about the BCS being unfair doesn't go away if the MWC joins the corruption. So to complain about how unfair it is but then cry to become part of it is pure hypocracy.
> 
> - Why would Boise State join the MWC? What is in it for them to join the MWC? Games on the MTN. Oh goody.


 -_O- -_O- -_O-

Gary... I love the way you put things. Thanks for making me LOL today!!


----------



## Packfish (Oct 30, 2007)

Play off system ? And just how many games would that entail ? Some where along the line I'd like to see a kid get some sort of education. It is what it is and pretty much will stay that way.


----------



## Guest (Jan 6, 2010)

Packfish said:


> Play off system ? And just how many games would that entail ? Some where along the line I'd like to see a kid get some sort of education. It is what it is and pretty much will stay that way.


Every other NCAA sport has a playoff of some sort to determine who the champion is, so why cant they do it with football? I would like to see a 16 team playoff, with 11 spots going to the champion of each conference. That leaves 5 at-large bids for the best non-conference champion teams in the country. How do you pick who those 5 at-large bids go to, you say? I dont care. Pick whatever method seems the most fair. It doesn't matter as long as every team in D1 has an equal shot at winning the NC by first winning their conference. Assuming each can play no more than one game per week, a 16 team playoff would take 4 weeks to reach the final. Add a week off between the end of the regular season, and the start of the playoffs, and the championship game could still be reached by mid-January, not much different than the current NC game date. What about the other 100+ D1 teams who dont make the playoffs, you say? They can still play in their pointless bowl games if they are bowl eligible. If you think about it, there is only 1 bowl game right now that really means anything so it wouldn't be any different then it is now for those teams who dont make the playoffs.


----------



## Packfish (Oct 30, 2007)

#1 money talks and those with the money aren't buying into a system that thier league isn't gauranteed anything but 1 game. Still think it's too long for college kids- remember only a small % of those kids make it in the NFL - the rest have to pull thier weight like any other Joe Blow. In all reality it boils down to selfish entertainment for us. I'm not a fan of the BCS system but I do enjoy watching the bowl games- just don't see a play off system ever happenning. 16 teams 1 week- next week 8 teams next week 4 teams next week 2 teams. Too long- too many injuries- too many varibles against the athlete and the coach.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Packfish said:


> Still think it's too long for college kids- remember only a small % of those kids make it in the NFL - the rest have to pull thier weight like any other Joe Blow.


I would accept that argument, if the swimming, gymnastics, soccer, wrestling, basketball, volleyball, baseball, golf, and track athletes didn't have championships with an even smaller chance of playing their sport professionally. And at most schools, the peripheral sports don't have nearly the facilities or support structure in place like the football programs. Football players get far more preferential treatment than athletes in the other sports. AND - the playoff WeekendWarrier outlined would only extend the current season one more week for only two teams. Baseball and basketball players miss 3 times the number of school days (2/3 of the games are on weeknights - not saturdays and they have 3 times more games) for their sports than do football players. And I've never heard concerned about that.


----------



## Packfish (Oct 30, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> Packfish said:
> 
> 
> > Still think it's too long for college kids- remember only a small % of those kids make it in the NFL - the rest have to pull thier weight like any other Joe Blow.
> ...


 Didn't listen to Bobby Knight much then- he complained many times on too long of season and too many games on school nights. I was a college athlete in one of the sports above and the season wasn't anything like the football schedule. 1 more week for 2 teams - I don't think so- you are only talking a 
date time frame not how many more games some teams would play. No matter how you look at it my 1st statement stands- money talks and those with the money aren't going to be gauranteed only one team.
If it was an equal system that we have than the system proposed would work- it's not an equal system and they aren't going to let it happen.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Speaking of the future of the MWC, one of the national sports rags was suggesting that a significant conference realignment would happen this year in the off-season. It suggested the following realignments:

Big-10 - Takes Iowa State from the Big 12, giving the Big 10 12 teams, allowing for a conference championship game.

Pac-10 Takes Colorado from the Big-12 and Utah from the MWC, (both are also research schools sticking with that Pac-10 requirement) giving them 12 teams, two significant new media markets/recruiting bases, and the chance for a conference championship game.

Big 12- Having lost Iowa State and Colorado, would take TCU and BYU from the MWC, giving another Texas team, and a Utah/National fan base with BYU, and keeping the conference at 12 teams.

MWC - Lost the big 3. Who cares. 

Anyone else hear/read this? Thoughts?


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

GaryFish said:


> Back to BSU joining the MWC - Why? What is in it for them? Even if the MWC gets an automatic bid - their chances of winning the MWC are much less than going undefeated in the WAC, so they would still have a better chance at a BCS game in the WAC. And unless the TV gods intervene, they'll continue to get better national exposure than any MWC team. So what's in for them to join?


Here is what is in it for them. Because of their otherwise putrid conference, they were an Oklahoma St. win away from being knocked out of a BCS bowl for the second straight year, even though they were unbeaten in both regular seasons. (OU beat Ok St. in the season finale and allowed Boise to obtain the last at large berth.) Because perception and strength-of-schedule are used in all of the ranking formulations, it is hard for Boise to get high enough "cred" when compared to AQ's and even the "big 3" MWC teams. I think Boise would join the presently constituted MWC in a heartbeat. They know already that they can compete with us.



GaryFish said:


> Speaking of the future of the MWC, one of the national sports rags was suggesting that a significant conference realignment would happen this year in the off-season. It suggested the following realignments:
> 
> Big-10 - Takes Iowa State from the Big 12, giving the Big 10 12 teams, allowing for a conference championship game.
> 
> ...


I have read about the CU and Utah to the Pac-10 theory for some time. The U would jump at that, but what would be the advantage of CU going to the Pac 10? They have established natural rivalries with their long time former Big-8 conference mates, the new Big-12 is regarded equally, if not higher than the Pac-10 in both football and hoops, and I don't know why they would feel the Pac -10 would be an advantage to them in other ways.

I recently heard an interview with the Pac-10 commissioner where he stated that Pac-10 expansion was not something they felt was a high priority at this time.

It would seem a no brainer that if the Big 12 lost anyone, that TCU would be in the Big-12 in a New York minute. I suppose that if the Big 12 lost 2 teams, that one of the Utah schools, along with TCU would be strong candidates, but so would Houston U.

What I kind of think will happen is the Big 10 will take one of the Northern Big 12 teams (Iowa St. or Missouri) then the Big 12 will take TCU, and then the MWC will take Boise St. I guess we will all see how it shakes out.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

The Pac-10 taking Colorado would give them another somewhat large media market.

CU moving to the Pac -10 would give them better access in California recruiting. The only rival CU has in the Big 12 is Nebraska. And to Nebraska, OU is a bigger rival. CU has about as many rivals in the Big 12 as Air Force does in the MWC.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

GaryFish said:


> The Pac-10 taking Colorado would give them another somewhat large media market.
> 
> CU moving to the Pac -10 would give them better access in California recruiting. The only rival CU has in the Big 12 is Nebraska. And to Nebraska, OU is a bigger rival. CU has about as many rivals in the Big 12 as Air Force does in the MWC.


Hmm, perhaps. But leaving the Big-12 would reduce their presence in Texas, which is currently a hotbed of recruiting for them. When I lived in Colorado during the early 90's, OU week was also a big deal. They also have been playing the other former Big-8 opponents for a couple of generations, and I struggle to see them get the same excitement about Pacific coast teams. but then again, the rumor is out there and you may well be on the money.

One other consideration is that the Big-10 may go East to add a team. I have heard Pitt, Syracuse, and Rutgers are being considered. (Also assuming they can't persuade Notre Dame to join.) If that were to occur, then the chain of events described above wouldn't occur, and the current configuration may prevail. At least until the Pac-10 eventually expands, if it does at all.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

I see there is another brave soul on board.... :lol:


----------

