You're not comparing apples to apples here. To compare the number of 10 win teams in the last 3 years in the ACC to the theoretical expanded MWC doesn't make any sense. To win 10 wins in the ACC, you have to play the ACC. Your theoretical expanded MWC didn't get to 10 wins by playing against the MWC.
Also, I think you're going to find it hard to convince anyone that if even the expanded MWC played the ACC 1 vs. 1, 2 vs. 2, and so on, that the MWC would actually even win 4 of those games.
BYU (11-1) vs. Virginia Tech (11-3) Boise State (10-3) vs. Boston College (11-3) Fresno State (9-4) vs. Clemson (9-4) Air Force (9-4) vs. Virginia (9-4) Utah (9-4) vs. Wake Forest (9-4) New Mexico (9-4) vs. Florida State (7-6) TCU (8-5) vs. Georgia Tech (7-6) Houston (8-5) vs. Maryland (6-7) Wyoming (5-7) vs. NC State (5-7) San Diego State (4-8) vs. Miami (5-7) Colorado State (3-9) vs. North Carolina (3-9) UNLV (2-10) vs. Duke (1-11)
Honestly, how many of these matchups in 2007 would you expect the MWC to win? Saying that expansion "would produce a conference very close in performance to the current level of both the ACC and Big East" is quite inflated, and I didn't even compare them to the Big East. The Big East was better than the ACC this past season, but there isn't anyone that wouldn't say that the ACC had a down year. This season should see improvement, and we'll see how well your comparison holds up through this season as well.
As far as the expansion of the MWC goes, sure I think it would greatly benefit the conference members to expand. However, it would still be more appealing to the member schools of the MWC to jump ship and join the PAC 10 for 2 reasons. The first is the obvious prestige factor. The second, which might be the most important, is academics. Miami, Virginia Tech, and Boston College left the Big East to join their more academically superior brethren in the ACC and reap the benefits of such an association. The same would be said for those that joined the Pac 10. Of course, if 2 teams left the MWC for the Pac 10 after the MWC had expanded, I do think that the MWC could replace the 2 schools and still be okay.
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 1 year ago
I think the ACC vs MWC comparisons are downright funny.
Clemson_Joe
· 1 year ago
In what way?
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 1 year ago
I think the comparisons of the MWC being a superior conference is laughable. On more than a few occasions, we've seen attempts to do a top-to-bottom comparison and... it's just funny. Its the same thing that we hear a top WAC team saying that they would be an upper tier SEC team. That's just not even realistic, especially when you factor in the differential in the week-to-week schedule.
I get a little tired of the transitive arguments that attempt to advance the opinion that the Mountain West is an "elite" conference.
TCU > Houston > Okie State > Texas Tech > OU > 2007 #4 Missouri
We get these tales of BCS skins on the wall (BYU over UCLA in the bowl game last year) but overlook the obvious (BYU lost by 10 to UCLA last year, also).
I have indicated that a MWC might be a BCS darling this year, but... let's just tamp down the MWC > ACC/Big East talk. It's just silly.
Clemson_Joe
· 1 year ago
I agree. They are not close at this point.
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
Truly one of my goals for this tread was to get that out of my system, so I could link back to if if the topic is brought up during the season.
For the record I did not say greater than but that they are similar. The MWC, even the expanded version, needs to improve to solidify its claim to equality. A win in a BCS bowl this year would go a long way to achieving that.
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 1 year ago
Let's shoot for getting to a BCS game first.
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
I am saying a BCS win is the kind of result that could change the status.
Not going to one would actually hurt them this year with all the hype they are getting.
Losing one would maintain the status quo.
Superlobo
· 1 year ago
It's not so silly, when you consider that each ACC or Big East team makes approximately $2,000,000 dollars a year for just being a BCS school, compared to $175,000 for a non BCS school.
If the opposite were true, I am pretty sure most of the non BCS schools would be winning more than their fair share of football games. When you think about it, it's amazing what Utah and Boise State were able to accomplish against the heavily financed "big schools".
Even with this severe handicap the non BCS schools still get their share of victories and this year will prove that we are getting better. So show a little love!
" Truth, justice and the American way "!!!!
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
A bit optomistic outlook for this year given the data.
The numbers since 2004 have shown a widening gap each year between BCS and non-BCS.
That said, I feel a strange tingle in the air I have not felt since before the 2004 season when I first came to Fanblogs. I share your optimism, but it is not their on paper.
Yet.
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
I think these games would all be exciting.
I would expect Air Force, TCU, Houston, Wyoming and CSU to win.
I think Fresno State, Utah, New Mexico and UNLV are toss ups.
BYU, Boise State, SDSU would be expected to lose.
4-8 seems a bit harsh of an expectation from my perspective.
Ok, my benchmarks are not perfect. The fact is I created them before I composed this thread. I would be delighted to here of other benchmarks that could be used for comparison that may be better.
Clemson_Joe
· 1 year ago
I think the proposed expansion of the MWC would be very good for them. I also think that eventually it could amount to some substantial improvement. However, as it stands now, the top MWC teams play mediocre teams from BCS conferences. Until they start to play top notch teams from BCS conferences (which you did mention) I don't think the MWC can really take big steps to being recognized as a major conference.
Conference USA really isn't bad at all, and quite a few of their programs are on the rise. I'm not sure that Houston, or any of the others would want to jump ship for the MWC. Although, both conferences have to deal with the threat of possible poaching by current BCS conferences, the Pac 10 and the Big East. If both of these decide to go for 12 team status, not much would be left over for either of these. At that point, only a combination of teams from those 2, along with poaching the WAC, could create a conference worthy of national recognition.
In my opinion, the bottom line is that until the Big East and Pac 10 have grown to 12 teams, these conferences are all at risk of being ripped apart. Conference expansion seems to be a domino effect (as it has been at least 2 times before) so if the MWC decides to expand, who's to say that the Big East and/or Pac 10 won't get the itch too?
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
Boise has expressed very clearly they strongly desire to move into the MWC.
When the MWC formed Fresno State vehemently expressed disgust that they were not included in the defection. At that time they clearly wanted to be with the MWC and the scar of being snubbed might be a factor if they are approached now to join.
If the MWC loses Utah and BYU to the PAC 10 it will be harder for them to attract these teams away from the WAC. Indeed some form of merger of the two would be likely. By preemptively expanding the MWC would be in the drivers seat in hand picking who they get. Losing Utah and BYU would severely injure their chances of attaining BCS status.
I included a back up plan for a PAC 10 expansion.
Houston is the team whose interest I am least sure about. From an interest perspective UTEP or SMU would be easy pickings due to traditional rivalries, but I wanted a team that brought the most to the conference. Originally I was going to use Nevada but the division structure was not working out right.
If C-USA loses one team from the west to the MWC and three from the East to the Big East they could easily get Western Kentucky for the west and Troy and Florida Atlantic for the east. If the WAC is pilfered by the MWC then Louisiana Tech would be easy for the taking too.
If the MAC loses a team, and they don't have enough really good teams to talk about losing more than that, they would be good as they have 13 teams now.
Hawaii would likely be better off as an independent than with the remnant of the WAC. They could easily schedule 9 or 10 game against PAC 10 and MWC teams.
The remnants of the WAC and remnants of the Sun Belt would then make a reasonable conference, except for Florida International.
Clemson_Joe
· 1 year ago
I agree that Hawaii should be independent. They seem to be a novelty for anyone to play anyway.
You did offer a back up plan for Pac 10 expansion, but San Jose State and Nevada aren't going to garner much respect, if any.
If the Sun Belt is going to be poached, it's going to have to happen very soon in my opinion. The Sun Belt is starting to reap the benefits of the talent rich south east. They are picking up the leftovers from the SEC and ACC schools and are putting together some pretty decent squads with a promising upside.
I don't disagree at all that the MWC should expand. I think they should. I just don't think that teams from C-USA would so easily defect. If it's going to happen, they really need to do it now, and make sure that they get teams that will feel "right at home" so they don't stand to just lose them to the Pac 10 in a few years. If they could somehow create a group of 12 teams that feel that they have allegiance to one another, AND start to play better BCS teams, it could certainly amount to massive improvements for their reputation.
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
Nevada is a good team. San Jose State not so much. But with the obvious alternatives of Idaho and Utah State I go with San Jose State.
An expanded MWC with San Jose State and Nevada replacing Utah and BYU looks top to bottom to be slightly ahead of C-USA now.
A MWC conference stripped of BYU and Utah loses significant negotiating power in the realignment with WAC teams. Without Utah and BYU the WAC and C-USA could be taking the top MWC remnants.
One thing is certain. The WAC and Sun Belt are going to get hammered in the next round of expansions. The MWC gains nothing by waiting for the PAC 10 to play their cards.
Clemson_Joe
· 1 year ago
"The MWC gains nothing by waiting for the PAC 10 to play their cards."
I agree 110%. As I said before, if they're going to do it, they need to get with it much sooner than later.
Clemson_Joe
· 1 year ago
Oh, and nice thread by the way.
shiguy
· 1 year ago
actually it wasn't the academics it was personal reasons between all the schools. miami simply didn't want the travel fees associated with all the conference games (except VAtech) being north of the mason dixon line. not only that but if you tell me that miami is a academic magnet for the MIT dropouts i will laugh in your face! VaTech wanted to join for two reasons. first off they wanted to have the VA-VAtech game an in conference game so that they could get another OOC game. also the fact that in the last few years the "black diamond" game against WVU had turned so violent as to players being hit with trashcans helped with the decision. boston college used the BE plain and simple. they wanted to be in the ACC the whole time. ACC said no so they went to BE. BE said ok we'll let you in and then the second they could they jumped ship. with the conferences redone there was a contract that the ACC plays the BE for so many games in the year however, it should be noted that of all the teams in the ACC boston college is the ONLY team that it says in their contract will not play any of it's former teams in the BE (expansion teams not included).
Clemson_Joe
· 1 year ago
Donna Shalala has cited the strong academic association with the ACC as the reason many times. You can cite any other reasons you want, but during interviews this is the reason that she has given, and the reason mentioned most often by ACC presidents.
Miami was going to get their money from football regardless of affiliation, and Miami was going to have to travel, regardless of which conference they are in. Miami didn't reduce their travel time that much by joining the ACC. They play VT, FSU, and Boston College just like they did before. They play Virginia instead of West Virginia now. The only real difference in distance is that they play UNC, Duke, and GT instead of Syracuse, Pitt, and Rutgers. The difference in the cost of these flights is negligible.
When the ACC looked into expansion, Louisville was mentioned in the meetings. However, Louisville doesn't have the academics to join. So, the ACC looked to Boston College. I really don't know anything about BC's intentions and I'll take your word for it about them. For us though, we could add another strong academic institution (that has a pretty solid basketball program to appease Duke and UNC's whining) and another media market. The ACC would not extend an invitation to a school that doesn't have a good academic reputation.
dithridge
· 1 year ago
I remember Jim Calhoun saying he wouldn't schedule Boston College for basketball, but I don't remember BC saying they wouldn't schedule old Big East teams anymore. According to nationalchamps.net BC is scheduled to play Syracuse in football as soon as 2010.
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 1 year ago
I'm a firm believer that Stewie Griffin AND Ben Prather will take over the world one day (separate, working independently) and Ben's going to accomplish it under the guise of Utah football!
However, until that day, one must ask the following:
1) Why would Boise State make the lateral move from the WAC to the Mountain WAC and NOT wait for promotion to the PAC-10 or a conference to be formed later?
2) While we're on the subject, why would any team jump from the WAC or MWC to the other one when all it'll earn them is scorn from their previous conference mates?
The sum of the WAC and MWC is still only one conference. Neither will have clout on their own or together unless they somehow poach teams from either the PAC10 or Big12, or you take pieces from all four and shake them up and start again. IMHO...
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
For a team likely to go to a bowl game the MWC is more attractive than the WAC. The WAC divides the bowl money more evenly while the MWC allows the bowl team to get half the money for the bowl they go to.
Division of bowl money was the hidden factor that lead to the split of the old WAC. Geographic range and over expanded divisions were red hearings. The WAC is doing well from Hawaii to Louisiana and the MAC is doing OK with 13 teams.
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 1 year ago
Just so you guys know, I've gone ahead and copyrighted the phrase 'Mountain WAC' as a term for the MWC. You can use it, under license, with full permission.
But every third time someone uses it in this thread, everyone has to drink...
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
Same rules for MWAC, which I have used before in the PAC 10 expansion threads.
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
Several have called the move from the WAC to the MWC a lateral move because they are both non BCS conferences.
This would be like saying a move from the ACC to the SEC is a lateral move because they are both BCS conferences. Indeed the compairison would be more akin to the situation with the Big East and ACC when Miami, BC and VT defected to the ACC.
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 1 year ago
Well, there was a substantial financial incentive for the Big East teams to move to the ACC, as evidenced by the increased payouts the teams received in 2007. I don't know that the revenue distribution would be substantial for the WAC -> MWC move. If you look at the "deal" that TCU got, well, let's just say that it wasn't a financial windfall.
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
This is one mistake Boise State has made. By expressing their interest so vocally it would be ridiculous for the MWC to offer them anything.
With Boise State defecting the price for Fresno State would also be lowered. Houston could expect a far greater price than these two.
A significant factor is the MWC bowl money distribution policy that is very favorable to the teams that go to bowls relative to other conferences. For a teams like TCU this is a difference of roughly a hundred thousand a year.
Porcine
· 1 year ago
It's like deja vu all over again.
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
Question:
Is San Jose State a better option than Hawaii if an expanded MWC loses two teams to the PAC 10?
Clemson_Joe
· 1 year ago
No. Hawaii > SJSU
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
That is my thought, and an oversight above.
MWC-fan
· 1 year ago
Oh my freaking goodness!!! Clemson Joe and Kevin at fanblogs you guys really need to watch your college football a little more closely!! You are full of it! 1. This analysis should go back a five year period (3 years is too brief). I've done it and it makes the MWC look even better and the Big East and ACC even worse (per Utah's amazing team in 2004). 2. You make the statement that the MWC just plays the bottomfeeders of the BCS conferences. That is simply false, do a little homework and go back a few seasons tracking W/L of each conference's Non-conference record against BCS conferences and then track the teams they played win loss record, you'll find that MWC W/L record vs BCS schools is year in and year out even or better than ACC and Big East and that the combined records of the teams they play is in the middle of the pack among all conferences. 3. Where do you get off saying that a head to head match up would barely give the MWC 4 wins!! hmmm... C'mon wouldn't last years horrible Wyoming team's handling of ranked Virginia make you question that? 4. The truth is that this expanded conference would not have the nationally name recognized super power teams (right now) at the top, but that top to bottom they would be stronger than both Big East and ACC (especially the ACC!!). If I'm wrong here please I beg, make a reasonable argument other than saying its a ridiculous conclusion with nothing else backing it up! p.s. (Ben is being pretty objective here I mean there are many other stats that show how the MWC as it is is already playing at the same level top to bottom as ACC and Big East, which he didn't supply, I'm still waiting to see the numbers you would use to support your belief that the ACC is head and shoulders above the MWC)
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 1 year ago
((sighs)) I love it when first timers stop by, linked from the MWC homer boards and then proceed to question everyone else.
MWC-Fan... you want a statistical argument? You got it.
Luckily for me, Jeff Sagarin -- the hands down impartial expert on statistical analysis of college football -- has already done the dirty work. (Which was already posted here on Fanblogs previously, but... I digress.)
((sigh))
2007 - wasn't even close 5. ACC (75.21) 6. Big 10 (74.63) 7. MWC (70.95)
2006 - again, not even close 4. ACC (75.49) 5. Big 10 (74.89) 6. Big 12 (74.34) 7. MWC (68.34)
2005 - ridiculously not close 2. ACC (78.96) 8. MWC (69.51)
- The ACC has fallen back into the pack within the past five years. - The MWC has remained relatively constant as the seventh strongest conference
Guys... seriously... it's embarrassing.
MWC-fan
· 1 year ago
Those numbers are only embarrassing to the ACC. Here's a few points 1. First of all you didn't compare the numbers that we're interested in, I'm particular because I want to debunk your idea that the MWC plays bottomfeeder BCS teams, not true. I've posted the numbers I indicated I'm pulling my numbers from Sportslinknetwork.com and they compare the records of conferences vs. non conference BCS opponents and they're cumulative records 2. I see you're already backing off of your hardline stance that the ACC is way above the MWC thank you for a little more respect, and thanks Sagarin. 3. Would you please indicate what these numbers represent? The laughable thing is that the MWC isn't that far off of the ACC, now what if the MWC adds only Boise State? Then how do your numbers look? ooh yikes I'm afraid it might be getting a little close for you there. I'm headed to sagarin's websiter right now but where's the Big East on that comparison? My point is that you are a moron when you make the MWC out to be nothing compared to the Big East and ACC. The fact is that the separation between the bottom BCS conferences is less than the difference between the MWC and WAC. Please recognize which arguments are being made.
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 1 year ago
h
gatorhippy
· 1 year ago
LMAO...
Dude got h'ed...
WestCoaster
· 1 year ago
What does "h" mean? I've seen it used many times without explanation of what it means. I know it's some inside joke of sorts, but care to explain?
Clemson_Joe
· 1 year ago
Someone else could explain it better than me, but I'll give it a shot. It's basically a way to reply to a "drive by" poster that signifies that what they have to say is basically irrelevant. A lot of times first or one timers come through with some comment to just stir up the masses and it disrupts the actual thread, so rather than retort, a simple "h" says it all.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how I have understood it to be.
Porcine
· 1 year ago
The h is for the horse he went to college for.
shiguy
· 1 year ago
agree h
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
Sagarin's process of generating conference rankings is easily applied to evaluate a proposed expansion and is weighted to the middle of the pack. Adding Boise State and Fresno State would significantly raise the MWC rating, especially in 2003, 2004 and 2006.
If you are going to use this data when discussing the strength of an MWC expanded MWC at least adjust them properly.
EDIT: This is now done HERE where this portion of this conversation should be redirected.
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
I am not fair. Anyone who has read anything I have written knows I am biased pro-Utah and pro-MWC.
The measure of my fairness is that I did not include the 2004 Utes. TCU, Fresno State, and Boise State also excelled in 2004 and 2003. The expanded MWC looked much better than the MWC individually those years.
MWC-fan
· 1 year ago
I don't want to spam up the message board but here's last years stats for instance. Keep in mind this does not include Boise St, Fresno St, and Houston in the comparison. Seems as though the MWC is competing pretty well compared to ACC even without those teams. Certainly undermines the conclusion that the ACC is way ahead of the MWC.
First, you can't compare a MWC OOC vs BCS to BCS conferences' because there is such a disparity between the strength of competition on a weekly basis. It renders the comparison moot.
Second, the comparison you've done doesn't qualify the games in any way. For example, FSU vs Florida is exactly equal to TCU - Baylor, even though there is a significant difference between the strength of the opponent. The relative strength of the MWC's opponents is woefully deficient.
Please take a look at the last post re: the Sagarin ratings and please... stop.
The OP has conceded that he was getting it out of his system. I'm not sure I have enough duct tape to keep my head from exploding while all the MWC types experience catharsis.
((sigh))
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
How does the combined record of BCS OOC opponents not deal with the Florida vs Baylor argument?
The MWC was ahead of the Big 10, Pac 10 and Big East in this stat.
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 1 year ago
Yes, but they were not ranked by that statistic, Ben. They were ranked by the W/L OOC only.
The statement that the MWC is middle of the pack i guess means bottom of the middle third. Any conference lower than the independents in OOC strength has no room to boast.
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
Commenting Restored!!!
Please lets keep the comments on this tread focused on the merits of the expansion. Expansion increases the MWC's chances of upgrading to a BCS conference, but a loss of BYU and Utah would kill that hope and improvements on the field would still need to be made.
A new thread is coming soon to discuss the BCS credentials of conferences. That discussion is obviously needing to be opened up. This is what I need to get out of my system.
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 1 year ago
Yep, as I said before. The Disqus system created a duplicate thread when importing Google News, so it caused all heck to break loose last night. I didn't notice it until this morning when I got up, so it was pretty much closed all night. So much for the black helicopters and conspiracy theories....
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
My apologies for any comment that may have imparted the blame for that on you instead of the Disqus computer system where it belonged..
Lennie Collins
· 1 year ago
Houston and Texas Christian don't even sound right in the Mountain West! Boise State, Idaho, Fresno State, and Nevada should be considered for geographical reasons!
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
I argued that when the took TCU instead of Boise State. Now that they already have TCU, Houston is not as big of a stretch from the MWC point of view.
Lennie Collins
· 1 year ago
Ben Prather...there are no mountains in Fort Worth or Houston. I can understand UTEP but not TCU or UH! The name Mountain West is what I am gone go by!
Superlobo
· 1 year ago
There is no pacific ocean in Arizona, so what's the point?
Lennie Collins
· 1 year ago
Who are you? What is your point?
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
He is a New Mexico fan who at least found a logo indicating he plans to be around a little while.
his point is if the two Arizona schools can be in the PAC 10, why not two Texas Schools in the MWC?
Heck, their are 11 schools in the BIG 10. What does the name of a conference have to do with anything? Does C-USA cover the entire nation?
Lennie Collins
· 1 year ago
Hey Ben Prather...just like team jerseys should co-ordinate so should the conferences! There are 11 in that conference so I have always called to it as the BIG 11, doggone it!
Superlobo
· 1 year ago
My point is Arizona and Arizona State are in the Pac 10 (Pacific Athletic Conference), where the pacific ocean is. They are both located in the southwest desert. So your logic on the name of the conference limiting teams to a geographical area does not always apply. Thanks Ben!
Lennie Collins
· 1 year ago
MisterLobo...welcome to the blog BUT there is no such conference as the Pacific Athletic Conference. Pac - 10 is short for Pacific - 10! I agree they are no where near the Pacific Ocean...MAYBE they can join the Mountain West! San Jose State & Fresno State to the Pacific- 10...AAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
Superlobo
· 1 year ago
My bad, you're right. The point remains the same. Thanks for the welcome!
Lennie Collins
· 1 year ago
The point I am getting at is that there is no doggone mountains in Fort Worth or Houston just like the is no Pacific Ocean in Arizona, Doggone it!
Superlobo
· 1 year ago
You're right , however you can't blame the MWC for trying to get the best teams possible, no matter the geographic location of that team.
Lennie Collins
· 1 year ago
Location, Location, Location!
Chasen
· 1 year ago
I agree its the same as Lousiana Tech being in the Western Athletic Conference
Zac
· 1 year ago
To the Commissioners & Presidents of the schools in the MWC, a word to the wise (could be an "oxymoron" there): Learn from the ACC expansion five years ago. The Big East got caught with their pants down, not to mention there was a traitor in their midst. There have been strong hints & rumors indicating the PAC-10 may be moving to expand. If they do, they will likely raid the MWC. Then, the MWC will have to recover by raiding another conference; they will have no choice. Therefore, if it makes good business sense to do so, move towards expansion and do it soon. That doesn't mean the PAC-10 will be unable to raid the MWC as theorized, but it will make it more difficult, and if accomplished, will not result in as much harm as was done to the Big East.
Face it; the hand writing is on the wall. The time is NOW. Do it, and the future will likely be brighter for the MWC. Do it not…well, ya snooze; ya looze.
Superlobo
· 1 year ago
I agree expansion for the MWC should be addressed sooner than later. I also think that the MWC would be an attractive option for any non BCS school. Most non BCS schools that were given an invitation to join the MWC, would most probably join. Unfortunately the MWC has a superiority complex over the other non BCS schools,just like the BCS schools have over us, which will probably be our downfall.
However, all this being said, it is quite amazing what the non BCS schools have been able to do. Especially Utah and Boise State. With such disproportionate pay outs to BCS and non BCS schools-$2,000,000 to $175.000- it's a minor miracle non BCS schools ever beat a BCS school at all. Once this issue gets resolved, strength of schedule and all other excuses will be resolved.
At that point the MWC can compete with any conference-we are almost there now. This year will tell alot, because some of the teams on MWC schedules include Texas AM, UCLA, Michigan, Washington,Tulsa , Colorado,Arizona, Notre Dame, Houston, California and Oklahoma. We'll win more than we lose. We can only play them if they want to play!
"Truth, Justice and the American way"!!!!
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
IF we win more of those games than we lose, and a BCS Bowl, this will be the MWC break out year I have been waiting for.
lbu828694
· 1 year ago
Utah and BYU would probably not be low on the the pac-10 totem pole. you could argue that they'd be ahead of Stanford and possibly Arizona.
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
>>> I <<< could argue they would be the champions. >>> I <<< am very biased.
A more reasonable take would place them as the #4 or #5 team on a consistent basis.
1Tomcat
· 1 year ago
Stanford is on the way up-no doubt, now they can't get past TCU so the bottom of the PAC is = to or better than the top MWC teams I'm confused BTW I dont like PAC teams and I'm glad that Stanford has improved, I'll be pulling for TCU in their games this year against Stanford and Oklahoma
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
I like their odds better at Stanford. Oklahoma is almost a no lose situation.
Cougar_Fan
· 1 year ago
Good point! Its funny how snobbish sports fans like to be but ESPECIALLY college football fans. SEC are snobs to every other BCS conference, BCS schools are snobs to non-BCS schools, and unfortunately MWC are probably snobs to other non-BCS conferences. This will be a good year for the MWC, I think they will do well against BCS schools, and hopefully start to get a little more respect. I would love to see the BYU Utah game determine a BCS birth.
Superlobo
· 1 year ago
BYU and Utah fans, your guys belong in the MWC. To look elsewhere is foolhardy. If the MWC makes the right moves, we are probably very close to an at large bid to the BCS. This year is key we need to support every MWC team when possible. It is also very important that either BYU or Utah go undefeated this year, So as much as it pains me a loss by the Lobos to both Utah and BYU would be a good thing for the conference. The rest will be up to you. But, we'll give you heck in both games!
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
You all just focus on Texas A&M, Arizona and Tulsa. In OOC a win for one is a win for all.
Whatever you do, don't lose to New Mexico State!
Superlobo
· 1 year ago
We got your back big Ben. You take care of business for the MWC!!!
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
Hopefully you don't stab us in the back like you did 2 of the last 3.
Superlobo
· 1 year ago
Like I said we'll give you heck, but it appears as if both Utah and BYU will both field great teams this year. We have been doing very well lately with Rocky Long as coach (Rocky was born in Utah and Bronco Mendenhall was an assistant with the Lobos for years.)
Don't get me wrong, if we beat either one of you, I would be pleased, but for the good of the MWC we need you two to break through, so the rest of the country can see there are some other very good football teams in our conference. Last year Air Force was 9-4, New Mexico 9-4, TCU 8-5 and of course Utah 9-4 and BYU 11-2. That's 5 of the 9 conference teams with very good records against some very good competition. Most of all the losses to the aforementioned teams were dealt by the other conference members.
Rocky chose to schedule some very good ooc games this year (Texas AM, Arizona and Tulsa). I hope he wasn't too ambitious. Those teams along with the conference schedule is brutal. We have managed to beat Texas Tech, Missouri and Arizona in the last three years and have been invited to 5 bowls in the last 6 years. So, we are improving. However, I believe your future glory is right here in the MWC. Like I said before, we are almost there. We can only prove what we are allowed to prove by the BCS.
All we can hope for is "Truth, justice and the American way" to prevail.
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
MWC Automatic Bowl Berths: 4
Bowl record 4-1.
We are doing something right.
TOSW
· 1 year ago
This from the never-going-to-happen department: What about realignment instead of expansion? Could the better programs in the West break off and form their own conference? I think it would make a lot of sense for Utah, BYU, Fresno State, Boise State and TCU to all be playing in the same league. I mention those schools based on factors such as sustained on-field success, facilities, fan support, local business communities, population/recruiting base, etc. Few other programs in the West can come close to any of those in one or two categories, let alone all of them. So to keep the overall prestige-level of the league high, I think it makes sense to "trim the fat," so to speak. Playing a UNLV or San Diego State here and there is no big deal, but if you had seven other weak teams in the conference would ensure that it never could be thought of in the same light as a current BCS league. So I think a nine-team league with the five big programs and a few middling-to-fair schools would have great potential. Not so much to be the "seventh BCS conference," but maybe the conference that's thought of as on its own level in between, the undisputed seventh-best.
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
When the MWC formed they thought they were trimming off the WAC fat.
The problem with realignment is no matter how balanced the teams are to start, eventually separation will occur.
The current MWC with Boise State, Fresno State and another would be as good in the long run, if not better than, any possible realignment. The real problem is strength of schedule. The MWC needs to improve this.
Weber State and Southern Utah are not acceptable oppoonents.
MetsJetsRebels
· 1 year ago
I know that UNLV doesn't really add much to the MWC in terms of Football(although I think we will win more than 3 games this year ;P haha), but I think they do contribute a lot to the MWC because of their basketball tradition. How much does basketball account for a schools value to a conference, in your guys' opinion? I know Boise St., Houston, and Fresno St. aren't powerhouses in basketball by any stretch, and their addition would be strictly for football, but those 3 aren't bad in basketball. What I'm trying to say is that even though football is what brings in the big bucks, when talking about conference expansion, how much do you value a schools abilities in other sports(like Basketball...)?
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
The MWC does not get its due as a BB conference. BB would be a significant factor that is completely neglected here.
The fact is that the NCAA tournament makes the issue less pronounced than the bowl structure. This is why Football is usually the driving factor in conference realignment.
Here we focus squarely on college football. No "HAIL TO THE REDSKINS" here. No other sports matter. (hyperbole...)
UNLV's problem is that even a close conference will experience separation. Just please beat Utah State this year. I mean really, that was embarrassing. Iowa State should be in reach and you can upset Nevada. Win THOSE three and everything else will work out well. A Miracle against ASU would be nice.
Just don't beat us!
MetsJetsRebels
· 1 year ago
I know. MWC is rising up the ranks in basketball as well as football. UNLV will be a top 25 team in the country the whole season, and there are a few other solid teams as well(BYU, Utah, SDSU, New Mexico, etc. all will be respectable this year). It just seems like basketball is completely thrown out the window, but what UNLV lacks in football, we're a basketball powerhouse that is going to put the MWC on the map in basketball for years to come(if we haven't already).
As for UNLV football, we will be able to handle Utah St with ease, and I could see us beating Iowa St and UNR, we play them close every time. UNLV, while their record doesn't show it, really has put up some good fights over the past couple years(Iowa St, UNR, that Wisconsin game last year, beating Utah, etc etc), I think our program is on the rise and will at least be respectable and potentially a 6 win team this year.
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
I wish Utah Basketball was still a solid team.
UNLV has been going 2-2 in OOC play, against teams that would beat most non-BCS teams,and ending up with 3-4 wins. They are not weighing down the conference.
They are not like Idaho or Utah State losing to FCS teams.
Marko
· 1 year ago
The conference should fold, not expand. Play chess, not football MWC.
Anonymous IV
· 1 year ago
Using the real estate mantra is a good idea. I think any conference that would include both TCU and Fresno State creates logistical problems. There is a thing as being too spread out. There is a geographical element that must be considered in conference re-alignment and expansion.
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
At least we are not from Hawaii to Louisiana.
Besides we have San Diego already, Fresno does not expand the territory that much.
TCU was the mistake geographically, not Fresno State or Boise State.
Given TCU, Houston is not so bad anymore.
Anonymous IV
· 1 year ago
I agree with you overall I was just stating the distance factor. It is nice that you mentioned the importance of the media markets in your article.
Anon V
· 1 year ago
The Pac-10 isn't expanding, there are no schools nearby that have the "research" status they want. The conference also has no need to expand for money because of the back up Rose Bowl contract. Their always gauranteed the big bowl even if the BCS imploded unexpectedly. I'm a Pac-10er and yes the university presidents do have a superiority complex to other schools, believing they are the academic equal of the Ivy League, so don't look for any expansion.
I say give Boise State a trial year in the MWC. Let's see how good they are when they play BYU, Utah, and TCU every year. Will they rise to the challenge?
Ben Prather
· 1 year ago
They get a trial this week at Oregon. I remember when we invited TCU and I thought they would be about 3-4 in the MWC due to th increase in difficultly and they won the conference.
Jim
· 1 year ago
I think you are mistaken if you believe The University of Houston would be the most attractive eastward program for MWC expansion. The University of Tulsa is much more attractive from an athletic, facilities and market standpoint. The University of Houston is in fact located in a bigger TV market but they are swallowed by that market . The city of Houston is and will always be a market dominated by Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech and LSU. The University of Tulsa does compete with Oklahoma and Oklahoma State for the Tulsa market but per capita The University of Tulsa has a greater share of their local market than the University of Houston. The University of Tulsa just renovated their football stadium and the facility is as good as any 30,000-40,000 seat facility in the current Mountain West. Tulsa football recently ended a 2 game series with BYU (TU is the last team to beat BYU) and last Saturday they just completed the 1st game of a 2 game series with New Mexico, blasting the Lobo's 56-14. Next season TU starts a 2 game series with Boise St. It appears TU is scheduling more Mountain West programs and that can only help relations. From a competetive standpoint TU football has competed in C-USA Championship game 2 of the last 3 seasons (4 Bowls over the last 5 seasons). This season they are expected challenge Memphis in basketball and it appears their storied basketball program is on its way back. Obviously Tulsa is a natural rival for TCU and New Mexico.
(Mountain West- Boise. St., BYU, Fresno St., San Diego St., Utah, UNLV / Mountain East- Air Force, Colorado St., New Mexico, TCU, Tulsa, Wyoming)
Chasen
· 1 year ago
Boise State should be moved into the MWC, it's an obvious decision. BSU's record in the WAC since joining in 2001 is 52-4. They have also won 6 WAC titles since joining. In their first year in the WAC (2001) they proved it when going into Fresno and beating the unbeaten #7 Bulldogs 35 to 30. On the downside though BSU has never been picked to win the WAC including this season and they have never started any season ranked. As for example Fresno St has started three seasons ranked since 2001. On another upside though Boise State has won 50% of their bowl games while being in the WAC and those victories were against good teams (Iowa St, TCU, and Oklahoma). The ones they lost were even close games when losing to Louisville 44-40, Boston College 27-21, and ECU 41-38. All in all its shown that BSU deserves to be a Mountain West team. They need real opponents!!!!!!! P.S. I know its not just the football team moving up, that the basketball team would move to MWC too but no worries because the Bronco's basketball team won the WAC last season!
Ed
· 1 year ago
I like the idea of Hawaii, Fresno and Boise going to the Mountain West. That would allow for a more balance league with: West Division: Boise, Hawaii, UNLV, SDSU, Fresno and BYU. The Mountain Division would have: Utah, New Mexico, TCU, CSU, Wyoming and AF. Each team would play 9 conference games with 5 division games, 2 rival games and 2 games rotating between 4 schools. This would allow Utah to play BYU each year and allow long standing rivalries to continue annually.
I live in Houston and U of Houston is a commuter school in a pro-town and is second fiddle to Texas, TA&M, Tech and LSU. Houston only brings potential TV eyeballs and a major recruiting area for the MWC. Look at the running back from Oregon State Rodgers that ran all over USC. He is from the Houston area and was hardly recruited. Houston is a major, rich recruiting area for not only the Texas schools but for schools all over. Tulsa is a decent team but doesn't bring eyeball revenue, recruiting or major attraction. My prediction is that Boise St will go to the MWC first. Then if the MWC can get a guaranteed BCS game, then you may see the MWC going to 12 teams. I agree with Ben that since Houston and Boise both have bowl games, it would allow the MWC to have more bowl slots. My other immediate prediction is that Central Florida will be invited to join the Big East by 2010. That will allow the Big East to have 2 schools in Florida and would allow the non-Florida BE schools an annual trip to Florida and enhance Florida recruiting. If Central Florida leaves, then Houston, Tulsa or UTEP may push to leave C-USA and join Fresno and Boise in the MWC.
All Comments
Also, I think you're going to find it hard to convince anyone that if even the expanded MWC played the ACC 1 vs. 1, 2 vs. 2, and so on, that the MWC would actually even win 4 of those games.
BYU (11-1) vs. Virginia Tech (11-3)
Boise State (10-3) vs. Boston College (11-3)
Fresno State (9-4) vs. Clemson (9-4)
Air Force (9-4) vs. Virginia (9-4)
Utah (9-4) vs. Wake Forest (9-4)
New Mexico (9-4) vs. Florida State (7-6)
TCU (8-5) vs. Georgia Tech (7-6)
Houston (8-5) vs. Maryland (6-7)
Wyoming (5-7) vs. NC State (5-7)
San Diego State (4-8) vs. Miami (5-7)
Colorado State (3-9) vs. North Carolina (3-9)
UNLV (2-10) vs. Duke (1-11)
Honestly, how many of these matchups in 2007 would you expect the MWC to win? Saying that expansion "would produce a conference very close in performance to the current level of both the ACC and Big East" is quite inflated, and I didn't even compare them to the Big East. The Big East was better than the ACC this past season, but there isn't anyone that wouldn't say that the ACC had a down year. This season should see improvement, and we'll see how well your comparison holds up through this season as well.
As far as the expansion of the MWC goes, sure I think it would greatly benefit the conference members to expand. However, it would still be more appealing to the member schools of the MWC to jump ship and join the PAC 10 for 2 reasons. The first is the obvious prestige factor. The second, which might be the most important, is academics. Miami, Virginia Tech, and Boston College left the Big East to join their more academically superior brethren in the ACC and reap the benefits of such an association. The same would be said for those that joined the Pac 10. Of course, if 2 teams left the MWC for the Pac 10 after the MWC had expanded, I do think that the MWC could replace the 2 schools and still be okay.
I get a little tired of the transitive arguments that attempt to advance the opinion that the Mountain West is an "elite" conference.
TCU > Houston > Okie State > Texas Tech > OU > 2007 #4 Missouri
We get these tales of BCS skins on the wall (BYU over UCLA in the bowl game last year) but overlook the obvious (BYU lost by 10 to UCLA last year, also).
I have indicated that a MWC might be a BCS darling this year, but... let's just tamp down the MWC > ACC/Big East talk. It's just silly.
For the record I did not say greater than but that they are similar. The MWC, even the expanded version, needs to improve to solidify its claim to equality. A win in a BCS bowl this year would go a long way to achieving that.
Not going to one would actually hurt them this year with all the hype they are getting.
Losing one would maintain the status quo.
If the opposite were true, I am pretty sure most of the non BCS schools would be winning more than their fair share of football games. When you think about it, it's amazing what Utah and Boise State were able to accomplish against the heavily financed "big schools".
Even with this severe handicap the non BCS schools still get their share of victories and this year will prove that we are getting better. So show a little love!
" Truth, justice and the American way "!!!!
The numbers since 2004 have shown a widening gap each year between BCS and non-BCS.
That said, I feel a strange tingle in the air I have not felt since before the 2004 season when I first came to Fanblogs. I share your optimism, but it is not their on paper.
Yet.
I would expect Air Force, TCU, Houston, Wyoming and CSU to win.
I think Fresno State, Utah, New Mexico and UNLV are toss ups.
BYU, Boise State, SDSU would be expected to lose.
4-8 seems a bit harsh of an expectation from my perspective.
Ok, my benchmarks are not perfect. The fact is I created them before I composed this thread. I would be delighted to here of other benchmarks that could be used for comparison that may be better.
Conference USA really isn't bad at all, and quite a few of their programs are on the rise. I'm not sure that Houston, or any of the others would want to jump ship for the MWC. Although, both conferences have to deal with the threat of possible poaching by current BCS conferences, the Pac 10 and the Big East. If both of these decide to go for 12 team status, not much would be left over for either of these. At that point, only a combination of teams from those 2, along with poaching the WAC, could create a conference worthy of national recognition.
In my opinion, the bottom line is that until the Big East and Pac 10 have grown to 12 teams, these conferences are all at risk of being ripped apart. Conference expansion seems to be a domino effect (as it has been at least 2 times before) so if the MWC decides to expand, who's to say that the Big East and/or Pac 10 won't get the itch too?
When the MWC formed Fresno State vehemently expressed disgust that they were not included in the defection. At that time they clearly wanted to be with the MWC and the scar of being snubbed might be a factor if they are approached now to join.
If the MWC loses Utah and BYU to the PAC 10 it will be harder for them to attract these teams away from the WAC. Indeed some form of merger of the two would be likely. By preemptively expanding the MWC would be in the drivers seat in hand picking who they get. Losing Utah and BYU would severely injure their chances of attaining BCS status.
I included a back up plan for a PAC 10 expansion.
Houston is the team whose interest I am least sure about. From an interest perspective UTEP or SMU would be easy pickings due to traditional rivalries, but I wanted a team that brought the most to the conference. Originally I was going to use Nevada but the division structure was not working out right.
If C-USA loses one team from the west to the MWC and three from the East to the Big East they could easily get Western Kentucky for the west and Troy and Florida Atlantic for the east. If the WAC is pilfered by the MWC then Louisiana Tech would be easy for the taking too.
If the MAC loses a team, and they don't have enough really good teams to talk about losing more than that, they would be good as they have 13 teams now.
Hawaii would likely be better off as an independent than with the remnant of the WAC. They could easily schedule 9 or 10 game against PAC 10 and MWC teams.
The remnants of the WAC and remnants of the Sun Belt would then make a reasonable conference, except for Florida International.
You did offer a back up plan for Pac 10 expansion, but San Jose State and Nevada aren't going to garner much respect, if any.
If the Sun Belt is going to be poached, it's going to have to happen very soon in my opinion. The Sun Belt is starting to reap the benefits of the talent rich south east. They are picking up the leftovers from the SEC and ACC schools and are putting together some pretty decent squads with a promising upside.
I don't disagree at all that the MWC should expand. I think they should. I just don't think that teams from C-USA would so easily defect. If it's going to happen, they really need to do it now, and make sure that they get teams that will feel "right at home" so they don't stand to just lose them to the Pac 10 in a few years. If they could somehow create a group of 12 teams that feel that they have allegiance to one another, AND start to play better BCS teams, it could certainly amount to massive improvements for their reputation.
An expanded MWC with San Jose State and Nevada replacing Utah and BYU looks top to bottom to be slightly ahead of C-USA now.
A MWC conference stripped of BYU and Utah loses significant negotiating power in the realignment with WAC teams. Without Utah and BYU the WAC and C-USA could be taking the top MWC remnants.
One thing is certain. The WAC and Sun Belt are going to get hammered in the next round of expansions. The MWC gains nothing by waiting for the PAC 10 to play their cards.
I agree 110%. As I said before, if they're going to do it, they need to get with it much sooner than later.
Miami was going to get their money from football regardless of affiliation, and Miami was going to have to travel, regardless of which conference they are in. Miami didn't reduce their travel time that much by joining the ACC. They play VT, FSU, and Boston College just like they did before. They play Virginia instead of West Virginia now. The only real difference in distance is that they play UNC, Duke, and GT instead of Syracuse, Pitt, and Rutgers. The difference in the cost of these flights is negligible.
When the ACC looked into expansion, Louisville was mentioned in the meetings. However, Louisville doesn't have the academics to join. So, the ACC looked to Boston College. I really don't know anything about BC's intentions and I'll take your word for it about them. For us though, we could add another strong academic institution (that has a pretty solid basketball program to appease Duke and UNC's whining) and another media market. The ACC would not extend an invitation to a school that doesn't have a good academic reputation.
However, until that day, one must ask the following:
1) Why would Boise State make the lateral move from the WAC to the Mountain WAC and NOT wait for promotion to the PAC-10 or a conference to be formed later?
2) While we're on the subject, why would any team jump from the WAC or MWC to the other one when all it'll earn them is scorn from their previous conference mates?
The sum of the WAC and MWC is still only one conference. Neither will have clout on their own or together unless they somehow poach teams from either the PAC10 or Big12, or you take pieces from all four and shake them up and start again. IMHO...
Division of bowl money was the hidden factor that lead to the split of the old WAC. Geographic range and over expanded divisions were red hearings. The WAC is doing well from Hawaii to Louisiana and the MAC is doing OK with 13 teams.
But every third time someone uses it in this thread, everyone has to drink...
This would be like saying a move from the ACC to the SEC is a lateral move because they are both BCS conferences. Indeed the compairison would be more akin to the situation with the Big East and ACC when Miami, BC and VT defected to the ACC.
With Boise State defecting the price for Fresno State would also be lowered. Houston could expect a far greater price than these two.
A significant factor is the MWC bowl money distribution policy that is very favorable to the teams that go to bowls relative to other conferences. For a teams like TCU this is a difference of roughly a hundred thousand a year.
Is San Jose State a better option than Hawaii if an expanded MWC loses two teams to the PAC 10?
1. This analysis should go back a five year period (3 years is too brief). I've done it and it makes the MWC look even better and the Big East and ACC even worse (per Utah's amazing team in 2004).
2. You make the statement that the MWC just plays the bottomfeeders of the BCS conferences. That is simply false, do a little homework and go back a few seasons tracking W/L of each conference's Non-conference record against BCS conferences and then track the teams they played win loss record, you'll find that MWC W/L record vs BCS schools is year in and year out even or better than ACC and Big East and that the combined records of the teams they play is in the middle of the pack among all conferences.
3. Where do you get off saying that a head to head match up would barely give the MWC 4 wins!! hmmm... C'mon wouldn't last years horrible Wyoming team's handling of ranked Virginia make you question that?
4. The truth is that this expanded conference would not have the nationally name recognized super power teams (right now) at the top, but that top to bottom they would be stronger than both Big East and ACC (especially the ACC!!).
If I'm wrong here please I beg, make a reasonable argument other than saying its a ridiculous conclusion with nothing else backing it up!
p.s. (Ben is being pretty objective here I mean there are many other stats that show how the MWC as it is is already playing at the same level top to bottom as ACC and Big East, which he didn't supply, I'm still waiting to see the numbers you would use to support your belief that the ACC is head and shoulders above the MWC)
MWC-Fan... you want a statistical argument? You got it.
Luckily for me, Jeff Sagarin -- the hands down impartial expert on statistical analysis of college football -- has already done the dirty work. (Which was already posted here on Fanblogs previously, but... I digress.)
((sigh))
2007 - wasn't even close
5. ACC (75.21)
6. Big 10 (74.63)
7. MWC (70.95)
2006 - again, not even close
4. ACC (75.49)
5. Big 10 (74.89)
6. Big 12 (74.34)
7. MWC (68.34)
2005 - ridiculously not close
2. ACC (78.96)
8. MWC (69.51)
2004 - laughable
1. ACC (77.91)
7. MWC (72.08) -- Thanks, Urban!
2003 - extremely laughable
1. ACC (79.91)
7. MWC (71.95)
A couple of thoughts from the Sagarin ratings:
- The ACC has fallen back into the pack within the past five years.
- The MWC has remained relatively constant as the seventh strongest conference
Guys... seriously... it's embarrassing.
1. First of all you didn't compare the numbers that we're interested in, I'm particular because I want to debunk your idea that the MWC plays bottomfeeder BCS teams, not true. I've posted the numbers I indicated I'm pulling my numbers from Sportslinknetwork.com and they compare the records of conferences vs. non conference BCS opponents and they're cumulative records
2. I see you're already backing off of your hardline stance that the ACC is way above the MWC thank you for a little more respect, and thanks Sagarin.
3. Would you please indicate what these numbers represent? The laughable thing is that the MWC isn't that far off of the ACC, now what if the MWC adds only Boise State? Then how do your numbers look? ooh yikes I'm afraid it might be getting a little close for you there. I'm headed to sagarin's websiter right now but where's the Big East on that comparison?
My point is that you are a moron when you make the MWC out to be nothing compared to the Big East and ACC. The fact is that the separation between the bottom BCS conferences is less than the difference between the MWC and WAC. Please recognize which arguments are being made.
Dude got h'ed...
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how I have understood it to be.
If you are going to use this data when discussing the strength of an MWC expanded MWC at least adjust them properly.
EDIT: This is now done HERE where this portion of this conversation should be redirected.
The measure of my fairness is that I did not include the 2004 Utes. TCU, Fresno State, and Boise State also excelled in 2004 and 2003. The expanded MWC looked much better than the MWC individually those years.
Conf-- Rcd OOC vs BCS--Points--Opps Rec (-HtH)
1. Big Ten (9-4-0)0.69231 -- (28.4-17.3) -- (51-96-0)-0.347
2. Pac-10 (6-5-0)0.54545 -- (27.6-22.3) -- (66-62-0)-0.516
3. SEC (7-7-0)0.50000 -- (27.6-23.9) -- (104-63-0)-0.623
3. ACC (11-11-0)0.50000 -- (19.8-24.8) -- (146-110-0)-0.570
5. MWC (8-9-0)0.47059 -- (25.0-25.8) -- (104-93-0)-0.528
6. Big East (7-8-0)0.46667 -- (24.9-23.8) -- (92-84-0)-0.523
7. Big 12 (5-6-0)0.45455 -- (23.5-26.5) -- (79-49-0)-0.617
8. Independent (6-14-0)0.30000 -- (18.1-32.9) -- (129-108-0)-0.544
9. MAC (5-35-0)0.12500 -- (16.6-36.9) -- (257-212-0)-0.548
10. WAC (2-15-0)0.11765 -- (17.5-41.2) -- (102-97-0)-0.513
11. Sun Belt (3-23-0)0.11538 -- (18.2-44.5) -- (191-121-0)-0.612
12. CUSA (2-23-0)0.08000 -- (18.6-40.7) -- (180-118-0)-0.604
Then don't, because you kinda are with this h.
((sigh))
You're not even comparing apples and apples.
First, you can't compare a MWC OOC vs BCS to BCS conferences' because there is such a disparity between the strength of competition on a weekly basis. It renders the comparison moot.
Second, the comparison you've done doesn't qualify the games in any way. For example, FSU vs Florida is exactly equal to TCU - Baylor, even though there is a significant difference between the strength of the opponent. The relative strength of the MWC's opponents is woefully deficient.
Please take a look at the last post re: the Sagarin ratings and please... stop.
The OP has conceded that he was getting it out of his system. I'm not sure I have enough duct tape to keep my head from exploding while all the MWC types experience catharsis.
((sigh))
The MWC was ahead of the Big 10, Pac 10 and Big East in this stat.
The statement that the MWC is middle of the pack i guess means bottom of the middle third. Any conference lower than the independents in OOC strength has no room to boast.
Please lets keep the comments on this tread focused on the merits of the expansion. Expansion increases the MWC's chances of upgrading to a BCS conference, but a loss of BYU and Utah would kill that hope and improvements on the field would still need to be made.
A new thread is coming soon to discuss the BCS credentials of conferences. That discussion is obviously needing to be opened up. This is what I need to get out of my system.
Now that they already have TCU, Houston is not as big of a stretch from the MWC point of view.
his point is if the two Arizona schools can be in the PAC 10, why not two Texas Schools in the MWC?
Heck, their are 11 schools in the BIG 10. What does the name of a conference have to do with anything? Does C-USA cover the entire nation?
Face it; the hand writing is on the wall. The time is NOW. Do it, and the future will likely be brighter for the MWC. Do it not…well, ya snooze; ya looze.
probably be our downfall.
However, all this being said, it is quite amazing what the non BCS schools have been able to do. Especially Utah and Boise State. With such disproportionate pay outs to BCS and non BCS schools-$2,000,000 to $175.000- it's a minor miracle non BCS schools ever beat a BCS school at all. Once this issue gets resolved, strength of schedule and all other excuses will be resolved.
At that point the MWC can compete with any conference-we are almost there now. This year will tell alot, because some of the teams on MWC schedules include Texas AM, UCLA, Michigan, Washington,Tulsa , Colorado,Arizona, Notre Dame, Houston, California and Oklahoma. We'll win more than we lose. We can only play them if they want to play!
"Truth, Justice and the American way"!!!!
A more reasonable take would place them as the #4 or #5 team on a consistent basis.
so the bottom of the PAC is = to or better than the top MWC teams I'm confused
BTW I dont like PAC teams and I'm glad that Stanford has improved, I'll be pulling for TCU in their games this year against Stanford and Oklahoma
This will be a good year for the MWC, I think they will do well against BCS schools, and hopefully start to get a little more respect. I would love to see the BYU Utah game determine a BCS birth.
Whatever you do, don't lose to New Mexico State!
Don't get me wrong, if we beat either one of you, I would be pleased, but for the good of the MWC we need you two to break through, so the rest of the country can see there are some other very good football teams in our conference.
Last year Air Force was 9-4, New Mexico 9-4, TCU 8-5 and of course Utah 9-4 and BYU 11-2. That's 5 of the 9 conference teams with very good records against some very good competition. Most of all the losses to the aforementioned teams were dealt by the other conference members.
Rocky chose to schedule some very good ooc games this year (Texas AM, Arizona and Tulsa). I hope he wasn't too ambitious. Those teams along with the conference schedule is brutal. We have managed to beat Texas Tech, Missouri and Arizona in the last three years and have been invited to 5 bowls in the last 6 years. So, we are improving. However, I believe your future glory is right here in the MWC. Like I said before, we are almost there. We can only prove what we are allowed to prove by the BCS.
All we can hope for is "Truth, justice and the American way" to prevail.
Bowl record 4-1.
We are doing something right.
The problem with realignment is no matter how balanced the teams are to start, eventually separation will occur.
The current MWC with Boise State, Fresno State and another would be as good in the long run, if not better than, any possible realignment. The real problem is strength of schedule. The MWC needs to improve this.
Weber State and Southern Utah are not acceptable oppoonents.
The fact is that the NCAA tournament makes the issue less pronounced than the bowl structure. This is why Football is usually the driving factor in conference realignment.
Here we focus squarely on college football. No "HAIL TO THE REDSKINS" here. No other sports matter. (hyperbole...)
UNLV's problem is that even a close conference will experience separation. Just please beat Utah State this year. I mean really, that was embarrassing. Iowa State should be in reach and you can upset Nevada. Win THOSE three and everything else will work out well. A Miracle against ASU would be nice.
Just don't beat us!
As for UNLV football, we will be able to handle Utah St with ease, and I could see us beating Iowa St and UNR, we play them close every time. UNLV, while their record doesn't show it, really has put up some good fights over the past couple years(Iowa St, UNR, that Wisconsin game last year, beating Utah, etc etc), I think our program is on the rise and will at least be respectable and potentially a 6 win team this year.
UNLV has been going 2-2 in OOC play, against teams that would beat most non-BCS teams,and ending up with 3-4 wins. They are not weighing down the conference.
They are not like Idaho or Utah State losing to FCS teams.
Besides we have San Diego already, Fresno does not expand the territory that much.
TCU was the mistake geographically, not Fresno State or Boise State.
Given TCU, Houston is not so bad anymore.
Ahhh, the new h.
(Mountain West- Boise. St., BYU, Fresno St., San Diego St., Utah, UNLV / Mountain East- Air Force, Colorado St., New Mexico, TCU, Tulsa, Wyoming)
I live in Houston and U of Houston is a commuter school in a pro-town and is second fiddle to Texas, TA&M, Tech and LSU. Houston only brings potential TV eyeballs and a major recruiting area for the MWC. Look at the running back from Oregon State Rodgers that ran all over USC. He is from the Houston area and was hardly recruited. Houston is a major, rich recruiting area for not only the Texas schools but for schools all over. Tulsa is a decent team but doesn't bring eyeball revenue, recruiting or major attraction. My prediction is that Boise St will go to the MWC first. Then if the MWC can get a guaranteed BCS game, then you may see the MWC going to 12 teams. I agree with Ben that since Houston and Boise both have bowl games, it would allow the MWC to have more bowl slots. My other immediate prediction is that Central Florida will be invited to join the Big East by 2010. That will allow the Big East to have 2 schools in Florida and would allow the non-Florida BE schools an annual trip to Florida and enhance Florida recruiting. If Central Florida leaves, then Houston, Tulsa or UTEP may push to leave C-USA and join Fresno and Boise in the MWC.