# Boise State to MWC



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Well, looks like another domino has dropped in the shuffle. Boise State is going to join the MWC. Why, I really don't know. They give up being ESPN's thursday night darling, to games on the MTN? The shuffle is far from over. Very far.

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=294&sid=11129822


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

YAY!!! Smurf Turf games.... can't wait to go see it.


----------



## mm73 (Feb 5, 2010)

Hmmm. Why did this happen today and not last Monday? Just reading between the lines here, but this looks to me like it was triggered by the CU move to the PAC-10 yesterday. I think Thompson and the MWC presidents know something we don't and they agreed during their meeting in Jackson that if CU goes to the PAC-10 that Utah will follow right on their heels so Boise is being brought in as a replacement to preempt any other defections. I would hate to see Utah leave the MWC but if they do go to the PAC-10 (and who could blame them) then I would love to see Utah State get an invitation to join the MWC as well.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

I don't see the MWC inviting Utah State. And no offense to the Aggies. They just don't bring anything to the table. No TV markets. No great sports reputation (outside basketball), and a really bad football program. The MWC doesn't need another bad football program. They have too many as it is. 

I think you are right though - the MWC presidents know something we don't. Inviting Boise State is preemptive for what is too come.


----------



## mm73 (Feb 5, 2010)

GaryFish said:


> I don't see the MWC inviting Utah State. And no offense to the Aggies. They just don't bring anything to the table. No TV markets. No great sports reputation (outside basketball), and a really bad football program. The MWC doesn't need another bad football program. They have too many as it is.


Yeah, I wasn't suggesting that the MWC would invite USU, just wishing they would. But you are right, the MWC is not going to add another football bottom feeder when they are fighting for inclusion in the BCS.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

I hope that Utah State stays in the WAC. That way, when my Cougars travel to Logan, ESPN can broadcast the game instead of the hacks at the MTN.


----------



## mcc9 (May 20, 2008)

This will help the MWC, now lets see what Utah does, stay or go.....


----------



## bowhunter3 (Oct 18, 2007)

they latest i have heard is the texas boys are staying put and just having 10 members. So what does the pac ten do then?


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Pac 10 will need to add a 12th member so they can have a conference championship. Most likely Utah.

As for the Big 12 - I'm not sure they can stay at 10 members. They have a multi-year contract with Jerry Jones to host the Conference Championship game in Cowboys Stadium. But NCAA won't allow a conference championship game unless the conference has at least 12 members. Not knowing the provisions of the contract with Jerry Jones - I don't know if there is a buy-out or cancellation clause. But they may find they need to add two more teams. The thing is, BYU and Air Force are the most likely candidates. And while I'm a total BYU honk, losing Colorado and Nebraska in exchange for BYU and Air Force makes the Big 12 considerably weaker than it was last week.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

bowhunter3 said:


> they latest i have heard is the texas boys are staying put and just having 10 members. So what does the pac ten do then?


Latest rumor, Utah to Pac 10 again. Like someone already said, this is like a soap opera for men. :lol:  :mrgreen:


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> Pac 10 will need to add a 12th member so they can have a conference championship. Most likely Utah.
> 
> As for the Big 12 - I'm not sure they can stay at 10 members. They have a multi-year contract with Jerry Jones to host the Conference Championship game in Cowboys Stadium. But NCAA won't allow a conference championship game unless the conference has at least 12 members. Not knowing the provisions of the contract with Jerry Jones - I don't know if there is a buy-out or cancellation clause. But they may find they need to add two more teams. The thing is, BYU and Air Force are the most likely candidates. And while I'm a total BYU honk, losing Colorado and Nebraska in exchange for BYU and Air Force makes the Big 12 considerably weaker than it was last week.


So why wouldn't the Big twelve take TCU and Houston, it makes the most sense.


----------



## Comrade Duck (Oct 24, 2007)

jahan said:


> So why wouldn't the Big twelve take TCU and Houston, it makes the most sense.


I believe it has to do with television markets. TCU and Houston don't provide any new markets where as both BYU and Air Force do as well as a national following of each team. The opportunity is there to make more money with BYU and Air Force.

Shane


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

jahan said:


> So why wouldn't the Big twelve take TCU and Houston, it makes the most sense.


They already own those TV markets. If they are going to add teams, they need to add teams that bring TV markets. Both BYU and Air Force bring both local markets, as well as nationally dispersed followings. TCU and Houston bring nothing new to the Big 12 that they don't already have.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Thanks guys, that makes a lot of sense. I keep forgetting it is all about the Benjamin's. :lol:


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

jahan said:


> bowhunter3 said:
> 
> 
> > they latest i have heard is the texas boys are staying put and just having 10 members. So what does the pac ten do then?
> ...


I'm stoked if it does happen... if it doesn't, then I'm stoked to see some BSU games against local "talent". I'm totally not a BYU "honk" but if they do go somewhere, it'd be nice to see them go be BCS fodder for teams like Texas or some of the other teams that last through the month of September.


----------



## bowhunter3 (Oct 18, 2007)

I believe it is just a matter of time before Utah accepts a invite to the Pac 10. Then I would be on the same side as riverrat :shock:


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

bowhunter3 said:


> I believe it is just a matter of time before Utah accepts a invite to the Pac 10. Then I would be on the same side as riverrat :shock:


Well think of all the additional **** talking we can do when the Utes thump Washington year in and year out.  :mrgreen: :lol:


----------



## mm73 (Feb 5, 2010)

I expect the Utes will accept an invitation to join the PAC 10/12. Although I don't blame them for it, I think it really *sucks* for the MWC. Boise State is on par with Utah in football, but that's it, and the MWC needs to get *stronger* if it wants to get AQ status, not stay the same. If Utah does end up leaving then I think the MWC needs to go out and get another school to replace them, in addition to Boise State. I am thinking it should be a Texas school, like SMU or Houston. I don't know if either school would even be interested in leaving C-USA and joining the MWC, but either one would be a good addition. Houston is the 3rd largest university in Texas, with enrollment of 37,000, and SMU, while down ever since receiving the "death sentence" from the NCAA in the late 80's, does have a storied tradition (Doak Walker, Eric Dickerson) and is a long time rival of TCU, making them a natural fit for the MWC. Both schools would help expand the conferences exposure in Texas, which, as we have seen this past week, is the epicenter of college football.


----------



## bowhunter3 (Oct 18, 2007)

mm73 said:


> I expect the Utes will accept an invitation to join the PAC 10/12. Although I don't blame them for it, I think it really *sucks* for the MWC. Boise State is on par with Utah in football, but that's it, and the MWC needs to get *stronger* if it wants to get AQ status, not stay the same. If Utah does end up leaving then I think the MWC needs to go out and get another school to replace them, in addition to Boise State. I am thinking it should be a Texas school, like SMU or Houston. I don't know if either school would even be interested in leaving C-USA and joining the MWC, but either one would be a good addition. Houston is the 3rd largest university in Texas, with enrollment of 37,000, and SMU, while down ever since receiving the "death sentence" from the NCAA in the late 80's, does have a storied tradition (Doak Walker, Eric Dickerson) and is a long time rival of TCU, making them a natural fit for the MWC. Both schools would help expand the conferences exposure in Texas, which, as we have seen this past week, is the epicenter of college football.


The problem with the smurfs is they only bring one thing to the table and that is football. I don't see them as being that great of an addition because of that. But, football makes the money so...


----------



## mm73 (Feb 5, 2010)

bowhunter3 said:


> The problem with the smurfs is they only bring one thing to the table and that is football. I don't see them as being that great of an addition because of that.


That was my whole point. Boise State is NOT an adequate replacement for Utah (assuming Utah leaves for the PAC 10/12, still not an absolute certainty that will happen). They need to get one more school, in addition to Boise State, preferably from either CA or TX. CA does not have a lot of possibilities, except for Fresno State, but TX has a few attractive possibilities, and TX is the promised land of college football so that is where the MWC should be trying to expand into. They scored big by getting TCU in 2005, they should try to score again with a Houston or an SMU. As much as I like Utah State, and would love to see them in the MWC for their rivalry with BYU, they would not add anything to the MWC or increase its exposure. Sorry Aggies.


----------



## Packfish (Oct 30, 2007)

I think in over-all sports- (all sports) Boise is ranked higher than U of U . Your other assumptions may be correct in U of U being a bigger draw but again from Girls field hockey to swimming to wrestling to football Boise ranks higher in an accumualted sports standing.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

It doesn't matter who you could add to the MWC. It has been, and will continue to be, irrelovent on the national football scene. AND, even if it receives an automatic bid to a BCS, the MWC will be treated at level with the Big East, only with less media markets. Cinncinatti last year was a prime example. They got no love, even though they were in a BCS conference.


----------



## mm73 (Feb 5, 2010)

GaryFish said:


> It doesn't matter who you could add to the MWC. It has been, and will continue to be, irrelovent on the national football scene. AND, even if it receives an automatic bid to a BCS, the MWC will be treated at level with the Big East, only with less media markets. Cinncinatti last year was a prime example. They got no love, even though they were in a BCS conference.


I disagree with your post Gary. The MWC may not be a power conference, but they are far from irrelevant. The MWC has earned a lot of respect nationally, in spite of its horrible TV contract. Utah is responsible for most of the attention and respect, but BYU and TCU have contributed as well. Getting Boise State was a great move, and it was obviously done as a replacement for Utah when it became clear that Utah might leave, but Boise alone is not an adequate replacement for Utah. They need to add one more. If they can land another TCU-like team from TX, and they continue to win against teams from the power conferences, then they can continue to earn the respect of the college football world, and potentially get a BCS bid. Will the conference ever earn as much money as the Big Ten or the SEC? Of course not, but money is not everything, nor does it equal respect.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Packfish said:


> I think in over-all sports- (all sports) Boise is ranked higher than U of U . Your other assumptions may be correct in U of U being a bigger draw but again from Girls field hockey to swimming to wrestling to football Boise ranks higher in an accumualted sports standing.


I disagree strongly, how many sports are they better than the U at?


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

jahan said:


> Well think of all the additional **** talking we can do when the Utes thump Washington year in and year out.  :mrgreen: :lol:


Oh dear Lord... what ever will I do.... can't very well root for the Huskies anymore because then somebody who knows BYU history will claim I'm a closet BYU fan because the Huskies coach is an ex Cougar. :lol: I'm hoping it happens because I never really went to watch college football games back in California and I'm drooling with anticipation over road trips to places like the Rose Bowl.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Don't confuse respect with "a nice story." The BCS runs by Utah, TCU, Boise State and Hawaii have been "nice stories" on the national level. But the conference has to field more than three respectable teams. And this latest round of expansions/realignments only makes that casm greater. Remember last year when BYU beat Oklahoma - the national story wasn't "BYU Dominates OU Line." It was "Sam Bradford out - should he have come back." When the utahutes won the Sugar Bowl, the national story was "Alabama still reeling after SEC Title Game - Not ready for Utah". It wasn't "Utah dominates Tide." The national story should have been about how good Utah was. It wasn't. It was apologetic and rationalizing for Alabama not giving the game the proper attention. And last year's TCU-BSU game was a total slight, creating a "best of the rest" bowl - a replay of the previous year's San Diego Credit Union Bowl. It was far from respect. Hawaii's Sugar bowl was "Hawaii Team Doesn't belong", when two other BCS games had larger margins of victory. Even BSU's win over Oklahoma was "BSU uses Trick Plays to beat OU", implying that in straight up football, they'd lose, but a bunch of sand-lot trick plays isn't real football. 

Mind you - I'm a HUGE fan of a MWC school - but the more I'm around and I listen to whats being said outside the local media market, the more I realize that the nation has no respect for the MWC, its teams, or anything about it. Sure, its a nice story. But not much else.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> Don't confuse respect with "a nice story." The BCS runs by Utah, TCU, Boise State and Hawaii have been "nice stories" on the national level. But the conference has to field more than three respectable teams. And this latest round of expansions/realignments only makes that casm greater. Remember last year when BYU beat Oklahoma - the national story wasn't "BYU Dominates OU Line." It was "Sam Bradford out - should he have come back." When the utahutes won the Sugar Bowl, the national story was "Alabama still reeling after SEC Title Game - Not ready for Utah". It wasn't "Utah dominates Tide." The national story should have been about how good Utah was. It wasn't. It was apologetic and rationalizing for Alabama not giving the game the proper attention. And last year's TCU-BSU game was a total slight, creating a "best of the rest" bowl - a replay of the previous year's San Diego Credit Union Bowl. It was far from respect. Hawaii's Sugar bowl was "Hawaii Team Doesn't belong", when two other BCS games had larger margins of victory. Even BSU's win over Oklahoma was "BSU uses Trick Plays to beat OU", implying that in straight up football, they'd lose, but a bunch of sand-lot trick plays isn't real football.
> 
> Mind you - I'm a HUGE fan of a MWC school - but the more I'm around and I listen to whats being said outside the local media market, the more I realize that the nation has no respect for the MWC, its teams, or anything about it. Sure, its a nice story. But not much else.


You are a wise man Gary, great post.


----------



## Packfish (Oct 30, 2007)

jahan said:


> Packfish said:
> 
> 
> > I think in over-all sports- (all sports) Boise is ranked higher than U of U . Your other assumptions may be correct in U of U being a bigger draw but again from Girls field hockey to swimming to wrestling to football Boise ranks higher in an accumualted sports standing.
> ...


 I think if you look up the directors cup that ranks all universitys in all sports as a combined total you will see Boise is higher than Utah. BYU is ranked like 34 Boise at 57 and Utah some where below that. 80 something I think. Maybe because they were dum enough to drop wrestling.


----------



## mm73 (Feb 5, 2010)

GaryFish said:


> Don't confuse respect with "a nice story." The BCS runs by Utah, TCU, Boise State and Hawaii have been "nice stories" on the national level. But the conference has to field more than three respectable teams. And this latest round of expansions/realignments only makes that casm greater. Remember last year when BYU beat Oklahoma - the national story wasn't "BYU Dominates OU Line." It was "Sam Bradford out - should he have come back." When the utahutes won the Sugar Bowl, the national story was "Alabama still reeling after SEC Title Game - Not ready for Utah". It wasn't "Utah dominates Tide." The national story should have been about how good Utah was. It wasn't. It was apologetic and rationalizing for Alabama not giving the game the proper attention. And last year's TCU-BSU game was a total slight, creating a "best of the rest" bowl - a replay of the previous year's San Diego Credit Union Bowl. It was far from respect. Hawaii's Sugar bowl was "Hawaii Team Doesn't belong", when two other BCS games had larger margins of victory. Even BSU's win over Oklahoma was "BSU uses Trick Plays to beat OU", implying that in straight up football, they'd lose, but a bunch of sand-lot trick plays isn't real football.
> 
> Mind you - I'm a HUGE fan of a MWC school - but the more I'm around and I listen to whats being said outside the local media market, the more I realize that the nation has no respect for the MWC, its teams, or anything about it. Sure, its a nice story. But not much else.


Everything you have said is true Gary, but I still maintain that the MWC is far from irrelevant. Utah did earn a lot of respect for its victory over Alabama. Not everyone shrugged it off as a win over an unmotivated Alabama. Many national commentators were forced to admit that the Utes were for real. Then the next year BYU shot up the rankings to the top ten after beating Oklahoma. TCU climbed up the rankings rapidly as well. Compare that to Boise State which climbed the polls more slowly because they play in the WAC. The Fiesta Bowl last year was definitely a dirty trick, but Boise earned a lot of respect for beating a TCU team that a lot of commentators were saying was as good as any team in the country. I don't dispute any of what you say, but I think you see the glass as half empty, and are not fully recognizing the tremendous progress the MWC has made in the last 5-6 years. Yes, they still have a LOOOONNNG way to go, and losing Utah would be a heavy blow to the conference, but as long as they keep winning they will continue to earn respect and possibly an automatic BCS bid.


----------



## bowhunter3 (Oct 18, 2007)

I looked up last years standings BYU was 47, the smurfs were 49 and Utah was 51 but that has got to be the dumbest standings they don't use basketball for men and women :roll: are you serious.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Maybe my glass is half full. But its hard not to have that when we are realistic about national reputation. At this point, I really don't think the MWC will get an auto bid. Last year, someone ran the numbers and even if the MWC added in USC's record, they would not meet the minimum to qualify. It isn't the lack of performance in the top 3 - its the bottom 6 that drags the MWC down. And none of that has changed unless we can talk New Mexico into going back to the WAC with their in-state rival. So I'm not optimistic.

Also - I think that by the time it comes to decide to let the MWC in - the BCS will change. I don't think that we have seen an end to the conference realignments. I still think there will end up being 4 super conferences, that will on their own, create a play-off among the champions and dissolve the BCS as it exists today. As today's situation is being driven by the almighty dollar, that too will happen. 

As far as the MWC being any stronger/weaker than it was last week, I'm undecided. I'm not sure BSU is better off in the MWC where they are stuck on the MTN channel, with no more Thursday Night ESPN games. ESPN LOVES the blue turf and now they won't get it. I also think having two consistently tough teams in conference like BYU and TCU will not do Boise any good. 

As for my beloved Cougars - I don't think their conference matters nearly as much as it does for Utah. Utah will get better being in the Pac 10. They'll recruit better, get more revenue, all that. But BYU, like Air Force, is a different kind of school. They recruit for different reasons that are wholly unique to them so conference or TV deals are far less important.


----------



## Packfish (Oct 30, 2007)

bowhunter3 said:


> I looked up last years standings BYU was 47, the smurfs were 49 and Utah was 51 but that has got to be the dumbest standings they don't use basketball for men and women :roll: are you serious.


 Last post from me on this- maybe it changed- but it sure looks like womens and mens basketball are counted.


----------



## mm73 (Feb 5, 2010)

GaryFish said:


> I think that by the time it comes to decide to let the MWC in - the BCS will change. I don't think that we have seen an end to the conference realignments. I still think there will end up being 4 super conferences, that will on their own, create a play-off among the champions and dissolve the BCS as it exists today. As today's situation is being driven by the almighty dollar, that too will happen.


I agree that the college football landscape is being shaped by greed, but I don't see the super conference scenario as inevitable. If anything, I think it has suffered a setback, with the PAC 10 looking really foolish right now. I am willing to bet that many of the PAC 10 school presidents are embarrassed and upset with Larry Scott for his miscalculations and for making them look so greedy. The Big 10 (which now has 12 teams) and the Big 12 (which now has 10 teams - go figure) have both come out and stated they have no plans for further expansion at this time, much to the dismay of BYU fans, including yours truly. The SEC has no plans either, and was never really interested in aTm. This is not to say that you won't see more conference defections in the future, but I think the super conference apocalypse has been averted for now, thanks to the Big 12 commissioner and others who stepped in to save the Big 12.

As far as the MWC goes, I am trying to remain optimistic. Of course, the loss of Utah would be a heavy blow to the conference, not to mention the BYU/Utah rivalry, but I do not think it will be a death blow. MWC officials were well prepared for this possibility and acted quickly and admirably (for a change) by getting Boise State. Time will tell whether or not this was a good move for BSU. But other schools will have to step it up now, especially BYU. I think BYU is a slumbering giant and seeing its long time rival leave it for a better conference may just be the wake up call that it needs. Never underestimate the motivational power of envy. Utah is proof of that and it is ironic how the tables have turned in the last 10 years. Other programs have shown signs of potential as well. New Mexico, SDSU and UNLV all have potential and just need the right coaching staff to make them successful. CSU has shown potential in the past, but unfortunately has taken a few steps backwards recently. Still, I think Steve Fairchilds is a good coach and I am hopeful he can turn things around. Wyoming will probably always be Wyoming. The best thing the conference can do though is to score another TCU-like program somewhere in Texas. Poaching more schools from the WAC is not going to help them, unless Fresno State turns into the next Boise State.


----------

