Does anybody other than MWC fans on their message board think they are going to ever get the BCS spot away from the Big East? If you are the media in a high population base , which conference looks more attractive to your readers and viewers? Assuming the Big East expanded to ten and took Memphis and say UCF since they are located in Orlando in an attractive tourism area, and fairly close to Tampa. And the MWC also expanded to ten and added one team, you fill in the school of choice.

Big East : Louisville,Pittsburgh,West Virginia, U Conn,Syracuse,South Florida,Cincinnati,Rutgers, Memphis, UCF.

MWC : Utah, Wyoming,New Mexico,BYU,TCU,Air Force,San Diego St,UNLV, Colorado St, then add one WAC team of your preference.

IMO, the bulk of the media would stick with the Big East, even if the MWC went to 12. It's not about who is actually better but about who is preceived to be better in the eyes of the BCS and their supporters.

nwp Wrote:Does anybody other than MWC fans on their message board think they are going to ever get the BSC spot away from the Big East? If you are the media in a high population base , which conference looks more attractive to your readers and viewers? Assuming the Big East expanded to ten and took Memphis and say UCF since they are located in Orlando in an attractive tourism area, and fairly close to Tampa. And the MWC also expanded to ten and added one team, you fill in the school of choice.

Big East : Louisville,Pittsburgh,West Virginia, U Conn,Syracuse,South Florida,Cincinnati,Rutgers, Memphis, UCF.

MWC : Utah, Wyoming,New Mexico,BYU,TCU,Air Force,San Diego St,UNLV, Colorado St, then add one WAC team of your preference.

IMO, the bulk of the media would stick with the Big East, even if the MWC went to 12. It's not about who is actually better but about who is preceived to be better in the eyes of the BSC and their supporters.

As Yogi Berra once said, "It's hard to make predictions, especially about the future." Having said that, I can't imagine that the MWC will get a BCS autobid any time soon. The sad fact is that the BCS was never about giving the best teams a chance to compete in the most lucrative bowls; it's about making as much money as possible. Can you imagine what would happen if Wyoming made it to a BCS bowl via an autobid? The TV networks would revolt! As long as most MWC schools have relatively small fan bases, I simply can't imagine that the BCS wants to give them an autobid.

Personally, I don't get the feeling that USU fans or administrators have much interest in joining the MWC. Sure, if USU were invited, they would probably accept it. We would get to play BYU and Utah every year, and the MWC TV contract is slightly more lucrative. But nobody is lobbying the MWC to invite USU, and we'd be perfectly happy to stay in the WAC for the indefinite future. Basketball is the main attraction at USU, and, if anything, I think the WAC is a more attractive basketball conference than the MWC.

Still, I have to admit that it's probably frustrating for Fresno and Boise fans to watch their SOS get killed in football every year by the bottom teams in the WAC. I can't blame them for wanting a different home. If Nevada can return to its winning ways under Chris Ault and if USU, NMSU, SJSU, and Idaho can get to the point where they can at least flirt with .500, then I can't see any reason to prefer the MWC over the WAC.

StanfordAggie Wrote:As Yogi Berra once said, "It's hard to make predictions, especially about the future." Having said that, I can't imagine that the MWC will get a BCS autobid any time soon. The sad fact is that the BCS was never about giving the best teams a chance to compete in the most lucrative bowls; it's about making as much money as possible. Can you imagine what would happen if Wyoming made it to a BCS bowl via an autobid? The TV networks would revolt! As long as most MWC schools have relatively small fan bases, I simply can't imagine that the BCS wants to give them an autobid.

Personally, I don't get the feeling that USU fans or administrators have much interest in joining the MWC. Sure, if USU were invited, they would probably accept it. We would get to play BYU and Utah every year, and the MWC TV contract is slightly more lucrative. But nobody is lobbying the MWC to invite USU, and we'd be perfectly happy to stay in the WAC for the indefinite future. Basketball is the main attraction at USU, and, if anything, I think the WAC is a more attractive basketball conference than the MWC.

Still, I have to admit that it's probably frustrating for Fresno and Boise fans to watch their SOS get killed in football every year by the bottom teams in the WAC. I can't blame them for wanting a different home. If Nevada can return to its winning ways under Chris Ault and if USU, NMSU, SJSU, and Idaho can get to the point where they can at least flirt with .500, then I can't see any reason to prefer the MWC over the WAC.

Well said, StanfordAggie. When it comes to many fans of other WAC schools, football is just about all they consider. But when you look at the entire picture the WAC is doing just fine.

The WAC is heading in the right direction in football. We're getting a 3rd bowl tie-in. Our bottom four seem to be making improvements and travel costs have been reduced. I think once WAC fans see how well the conference does this year in football, there will be very few who get excited about the MWC.

I'll admit two things: 1) on the whole, the MWC has a fairly significant edge over the WAC when it comes to such things as fanbases, facilities, and revenues; and 2) Nevada would accept a MWC bid if it meant being in the same conference as UNLV.

With that said, I really like the WAC and hope there's at least a core group that sticks together for many years to come. The WAC has a pretty good thing going -- I realize it's not perfect -- and a lot of reason for optimism. There are many indications of dedication to improving on the field and improving facilities.

The speculation about who, if anyone, might join the MWC got old a long time ago. I rarely even read the MWC board anymore, because it's always the SOS. I understand why some people participate in discussions on both boards, but I don't understand why so many others spend ALL of their time on the MWC board, and never join in a discussion with their own conference mates.

To those people who are unhappy being in the WAC, I'll just say, "No matter where you go, there you are."

:microwave:

PS. No, I don't see the MWC ever taking a BCS autobid away from the BE. Under the new rules, if the MWC (or anyone else) doesn't qualify for an at-large, they don't deserve it anyway.

clpack Wrote:I'll admit two things: 1) on the whole, the MWC has a fairly significant edge over the WAC when it comes to such things as fanbases, facilities, and revenues; and 2) Nevada would accept a MWC bid if it meant being in the same conference as UNLV.

With that said, I really like the WAC and hope there's at least a core group that sticks together for many years to come. The WAC has a pretty good thing going -- I realize it's not perfect -- and a lot of reason for optimism. There are many indications of dedication to improving on the field and improving facilities.

The speculation about who, if anyone, might join the MWC got old a long time ago. I rarely even read the MWC board anymore, because it's always the SOS. I understand why some people participate in discussions on both boards, but I don't understand why so many others spend ALL of their time on the MWC board, and never join in a discussion with their own conference mates.

To those people who are unhappy being in the WAC, I'll just say, "No matter where you go, there you are."

:microwave:

PS. No, I don't see the MWC ever taking a BCS autobid away from the BE. Under the new rules, if the MWC (or anyone else) doesn't qualify for an at-large, they don't deserve it anyway.

How can you get sick of the MWC board. Just because every thread either starts with 'what teams are we going to take away from the WAC' or 'The WAC sucks' (ironic?)?

The MWC will "not" replace the BE as a BCS conference.

You cannot seriously consider yourself a BCS compatible conference when your second place team finishes the regular season...6-5. I wonder if the SEC would be impressed with that? Maybe the ACC? ...or the Pac-10? Don't think so.

Secondly, those whom follow mid-majors know that a C-USA team came into the MWC and totally DOMINATED the conference. What does that say about the MWC compared to C-USA? ;-) It gives me an indication.

I think EJM is right when he mentions "this year".

Making comparisons based on last year...or anytime in the past no longer apply.

"This year", the world does a 180 for both conferences. I think I'm going to enjoy how things...unfold.

If the WAC sweep the Goats in football this year they will never mention
us again on there board. Damn, please, please, please let it happen. OH, and I will be having more that 12 rum and cokes. Whoopee

GO WAC GO BRONCOS

wolfin1 Wrote:

clpack Wrote:I'll admit two things: 1) on the whole, the MWC has a fairly significant edge over the WAC when it comes to such things as fanbases, facilities, and revenues; and 2) Nevada would accept a MWC bid if it meant being in the same conference as UNLV.

With that said, I really like the WAC and hope there's at least a core group that sticks together for many years to come. The WAC has a pretty good thing going -- I realize it's not perfect -- and a lot of reason for optimism. There are many indications of dedication to improving on the field and improving facilities.

The speculation about who, if anyone, might join the MWC got old a long time ago. I rarely even read the MWC board anymore, because it's always the SOS. I understand why some people participate in discussions on both boards, but I don't understand why so many others spend ALL of their time on the MWC board, and never join in a discussion with their own conference mates.

To those people who are unhappy being in the WAC, I'll just say, "No matter where you go, there you are."

:microwave:

PS. No, I don't see the MWC ever taking a BCS autobid away from the BE. Under the new rules, if the MWC (or anyone else) doesn't qualify for an at-large, they don't deserve it anyway.

How can you get sick of the MWC board. Just because every thread either starts with 'what teams are we going to take away from the WAC' or 'The WAC sucks' (ironic?)?

A poster on the MWC board just called me the "worst poster on the board." I take that as a badge of honor. :)

Seriously, I think the reason I've ticked people off on that board so bad is because I keep pulling out numbers to prove that the MWC is not as good as the Big East. I guess the thought of actually backing up one's claims with logic has never really occurred to them. The response is always, "Utah beat Pitt in 2004! The MWC is better!" Or, more commonly, "Leave our board, Aggie Troll!" Good time, good times. :)

jediwarrior Wrote:The MWC will "not" replace the BE as a BCS
Secondly, those whom follow mid-majors know that a C-USA team came into the MWC and totally DOMINATED the conference. What does that say about the MWC compared to C-USA? ;-) It gives me an indication.

I think EJM is right when he mentions "this year".

Making comparisons based on last year...or anytime in the past no longer apply.

"This year", the world does a 180 for both conferences. I think I'm going to enjoy how things...unfold.

CUSA isn't the same conference anymore, that's for sure. TCU cut their teeth with Louisville and once those two left, CUSA has Memphis and that's about it anymore....MWC trumps CUSA, as does the WAC. And this year is the year the WAC proves to be the best non BCS conference in the land.

StanfordAggie Wrote:

wolfin1 Wrote:

clpack Wrote:I'll admit two things: 1) on the whole, the MWC has a fairly significant edge over the WAC when it comes to such things as fanbases, facilities, and revenues; and 2) Nevada would accept a MWC bid if it meant being in the same conference as UNLV.

With that said, I really like the WAC and hope there's at least a core group that sticks together for many years to come. The WAC has a pretty good thing going -- I realize it's not perfect -- and a lot of reason for optimism. There are many indications of dedication to improving on the field and improving facilities.

The speculation about who, if anyone, might join the MWC got old a long time ago. I rarely even read the MWC board anymore, because it's always the SOS. I understand why some people participate in discussions on both boards, but I don't understand why so many others spend ALL of their time on the MWC board, and never join in a discussion with their own conference mates.

To those people who are unhappy being in the WAC, I'll just say, "No matter where you go, there you are."

:microwave:

PS. No, I don't see the MWC ever taking a BCS autobid away from the BE. Under the new rules, if the MWC (or anyone else) doesn't qualify for an at-large, they don't deserve it anyway.

How can you get sick of the MWC board. Just because every thread either starts with 'what teams are we going to take away from the WAC' or 'The WAC sucks' (ironic?)?

A poster on the MWC board just called me the "worst poster on the board." I take that as a badge of honor. :)

Seriously, I think the reason I've ticked people off on that board so bad is because I keep pulling out numbers to prove that the MWC is not as good as the Big East. I guess the thought of actually backing up one's claims with logic has never really occurred to them. The response is always, "Utah beat Pitt in 2004! The MWC is better!" Or, more commonly, "Leave our board, Aggie Troll!" Good time, good times. :)

It doesn't matter what logic you use...they will just reframe their argueme nt. If you say Men's BBall is important, they will say its not. If you say the top of the WAC can compete and win in the MWC, they will say the bottom sucks. Lately they are harping on budgets and crowd attendance but will not accept any historical evidence that would prove them wrong. They just cannot not understand that their shite stinks just as bad as everyone elses. They only thing the ticks me off more is the few WAC fans that post that are actually slobbin' the MWC fans knobs thinking that somehow message board posts will get them in. No self-respect what so ever.

When I said "why join the MWC" I meant to post there is not much reason for an existing WAC school to join the MWC, thinking that the MWC will become a BCS conference. IMO, that is little more than a MWC message board fantasy.

The MWC has had ample opportunity to take WAC schools and they just don't appear to be interested. It seems to be a moot point..

Since we're on this subject, what do you think the WAC's record will be vs. the MWC this year. I'm saying at least 6-5, but I'm with roughrider in that I hope it's a sweep. Even if the WAC goes something like 9-2 or 8-3, they'd shut up in a hurry.

Who cares what MWC posters think or do..

nwp Wrote:When I said "why join the MWC" I meant to post there is not much reason for an existing WAC school to join the MWC, thinking that the MWC will become a BCS conference. IMO, that is little more than a MWC message board fantasy.

How true....how true...that is so true.

Here's some reasons why the MWC wouldn't be good for Hawaii:

We'd have to ask ourselves these questions:

1. Are we going to get more national EXPOSURE? Answer: NO. CSTV has a very small market.

2. Are we going to get more MONEY: Answer: NO. Hawaii's "local" TV contract is worth more than what the MWC teams are getting from CSTV.

3. Will the University have the FREEDOM to make its own decisions in regards to Hawaii sports rights? Answer: NO. CSTV owns "ALL" rights to "ALL" MWC sports.

4. Will Hawaii's "home" SCHEDULING opportunities be improved? Answer: NO. BCS teams would likely stay clear of Hawaii and CSTV.

5. Would we be joining a BCS conference? Answer: NO. The MWC is just another mid-major.

So what is our incentive to join the MWC?

It's definitely "not" more EXPOSURE.

It's definitely "not" more MONEY.

It's definitely "not" the FREEDOM to make our own decisions.

It's definitely "not" improved BCS SCHEDULING.

...And it's definitely not to join a better conference.

No. The MWC has nothing they can offer Hawaii...except the "loss" of EXPOSURE, the "loss" of MONEY, the "loss" of QUALITY opponents, and the "loss" of FREEDOM.

Sorry, but the WAC and the MWC are going in opposite directions...and I like the direction the WAC is headed in.

;-)

Maybe if byu were to leave the MWC, I might like the Broncos to be in the MWC, but that won't happen.

I think UNLV and San Diego State should join the WAC and the rest of the MWC should merge with the CUSA!!!!!







just kidding....

Quote:Here's some reasons why the MWC wouldn't be good for Hawaii:

Don't forget they'd want us to pay travel subsidies again.

The BCS was created to do one thing...keep the money in the big conferences. For that reason alone, the BE will never be stripped of their BCS tag. The MWC is just dreaming. If they never lost to a non-BCS opponent, then something might could be said of them. The fact is, they are TCU away from being the MAC. The MWC, the WAC, and CUSA are on about the same level. CUSA has the big markets, but their competition isn't any better than the other two.

How about this scenerio:
UTEP is invited to the MWC
La Tech is invited to CUSA
Leaving the WAC with 8.

What potential teams would you consider for the WAC in a 12 team format? Considering long term potential, fan base, winning tradition, market growth, etc. I say invite Montana and Montana State to step up first, followed by UC Davis and Cal Poly.

Mountain
New Mexico St.
Utah St.
Montana
Montana St.
Idaho
Boise St.

Pacific
Nevada
UC-Davis
San Jose St.
Fresno St.
Cal Poly
Hawaii

As long as there were no defectors this group of schools could be one of the best regional conferences out there (at least #7 or 8 in the football pecking order, maybe even in basketball as well). Not to mention the Big Sky stays intact, preventing the "raid" backlash.
Just a thought.